Troll a sincere prolifer.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Asher

A person does, a fetus/zygote doesn't. That's why there's a distinction.

I wasn't referring to the fetus. I was referring to the mother, the doctor, you, me - everyone.

If we all normally accept that we are all free to make our own decisions in our daily lives, why should we try to deprive a pregant woman of her free will? Or a specific doctor? And so on.

[Ramo]

No neural activity? I believe the term for that is "dead."

[Ben Kenobi]

The idea that zygotes may become persons in the future, conditional upon many things, is not relevant to legal protection just as the idea that sperm or eggs may become persons in the future is not relevant to legal protection. Neither zygotes, nor sperm and ova have the neural and nervous sytems to warrant legal protection.

At what point would you consider neural and nervous systems sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection?

Asher:

1) People can come out of comas

Zygotes will grow and come out of the womb as an infant.

2) People in comas are not specifically biologically dependent on a host/another organism

They are biologically dependent upon life-support.

3) People in comas have been shown to be able to hear and be aware of their surroundings at least some of the time

So are unborn children. They can hear inside the womb.

4) People in comas are already people, they're just sick

And zygotes are already people, they're just small.

[Az]

nononono. their brain is not damaged physically, but it doesn't work. It's shut down or something, with the activity being "background noise". Completely cut off of the world, but they sometimes wake up.

I remember seeing this in movies, and on TV.

[Ramo]

At what point would you consider neural and nervous systems sufficiently developed to warrant legal protection?

Approximately the second trimester.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
1) People can come out of comas

Zygotes will grow and come out of the womb as an infant.

But only with the connection to the host, much like a sperm will grow and become a zygote with the connection to the egg.

I'm just trying to point out the holes in the logic. I realize it'll be hard to impossible to convince you, because your idea of what constitutes a person comes from your religion, which I don't follow.

They are biologically dependent upon life-support.

My argument was never that people dependent on something are not people, just that if you claim a zygote is a person a sperm is as well. They are both dependent and both have the potential of being a person.

So are unborn children. They can hear inside the womb.

I thought this was only in the third trimester?

And zygotes are already people, they're just small.

I disagree, and that's what we're arguing about aren't we.

[Ben Kenobi]

yavoon:

why not start at when the fetus gains sentience?

Do you have a definition of sentience?

When does the unborn child gain sentience?

dejon:

why should we try to deprive a pregant woman of her free will? Or a specific doctor? And so on.

See my earlier post in response to you.

BTW Brain death = irreverseable cessation of brain activity.

[Spiffor]

My radically pro-choice stance has no rational foundation. At least, not when it comes to define what fetus age is acceptable to abort or not. I use an arbitrary limit (3 months, as per the law in my country) and have absolutely no problem with that.

My pro-choice sentence comes directly from a social point of view. To me, giving birth to an unwanted child is the best way to turn the mother's and the child's life into a nightmare, the best way to create more suffering.
I am no fan of abortion, because it is a dreadful experience for the mother, except for a very tiny minority of *****es who just don't care. But it has sometimes to be done, when prevention didn't work, to avoid a very worse thing to happen.

I may alienate many people here on this forum.
But probably my biggest pride was to convince a student friend to abort. I wouldn't have done so if the situation hadn't been dire, but this time, it had to be done.

[Az]

Spiffor, but that's wrong. We should debate it. Lets say that we reach the point of the debate that we agree that fetuses are people.

Does that mean that we can kill the sick and the elderly too, from a social pov?!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
Spiffor, but that's wrong. We should debate it. Lets say that we reach the point of the debate that we agree that fetuses are people.

Fetuses have never been shown to be people scientifically. It all depends on how you look at the situation, and religious doctrines have chosen to look at them as people for various reasons.

As far as I know, biologically there's no signs that fetuses in the first trimester are sentient or even have brain activity at all, it's only in the second or third where that happens (and I don't support those abortions).

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by obiwan18
One person's rights end where another's begin. If the unborn child is a person, then we have a duty to respect the life, even if it means sacrifices by the society to do so.

The only duty "we" have is to respect the free will of the pregnant woman until such time as she has made her decision.

Your opinion about the rights of people or fetuses, the duties of society are all just your opinions (regardless who share them or how many) - and if you impose your opinions on others, you do them harm by restricting their free will.

My point earlier stands - if you believe in respecting the free will of others, that should not change in any circumstance, and thus you must allow the woman to do as she wishes.

[Ramo]

nononono. their brain is not damaged physically, but it doesn't work. It's shut down or something, with the activity being "background noise". Completely cut off of the world, but they sometimes wake up.

I remember seeing this in movies, and on TV.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but no, I don't think that those who are brain-dead should have the legal rights of a "person."

[Ben Kenobi]

Approximately the second trimester.

Ramo:

So what do you suppose happens with fetal development? Everything comes into place all at once? Fetal development is an incremental process, in that lots of things need to happen before the unborn child can develop this brain structure. The unborn child might not have this structure now, but it will given time.

Secondly, how can one come up with a non-arbitrary standard of 'sufficiently developed?'

Asher:

But only with the connection to the host, much like a sperm will grow and become a zygote with the connection to the egg.

But the egg ceases to exist after conception. The mother does not.

I realize it'll be hard to impossible to convince you, because your idea of what constitutes a person comes from your religion,

Where have I used a religious argument in this thread?

They are both dependent and both have the potential of being a person.

Potential? No. The unborn child is an actual person, same as you or I. It would be nice if you could rebut why conception cannot work as the standard.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
Does that mean that we can kill the sick and the elderly too, from a social pov?!

I am in favor of Euthanasia as well. The difference between Euthanasia and abortion is that the dead subject can actually express his will to live or lack thereof (of course, I am against forced 'euthanasia').
When it comes to abortion, only the parents are able to express it. It may be sad, but this definitely cannot be changed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
But the egg ceases to exist after conception. The mother does not.

The egg does not cease to exist, it just "morphs" (is this the right word?), etc.

Where have I used a religious argument in this thread?

You haven't, but I know you're quite religious and I also know that it's most likely the basis for your beliefs even if you won't admit it...

Potential? No. The unborn child is an actual person, same as you or I. It would be nice if you could rebut why conception cannot work as the standard.

You're completely avoiding the issue, again.

If a zygote is a person, a sperm is a person. You're conveniently labeling the zygote as a person without any real basis. You admit it biologically (and specifically) depends on the mother, but you ignore the fact that the sperm is classified as a person by the same logic, as it and the egg transform to become the zygote which you claim is a person.