An Intellectual Discussion About Killing Babies

[Ben Kenobi]

Mono:

The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.17

This sounds like a lot, but when you have 1.5 million abortions, that means that even if all the women pregnant by rape had an abortion, you would have 2.2% of abortions due to rape.

Actual studies show maybe 30% of those pregnant by rape actually have an abortion, so you would have less than 1% due to rape.

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi We're technical folks.

Why not use the biological, rather than colloquial terms?

Biologically, we do not differentiate between a pig embryo and a pig in terms of species. Why should we do so for humans?

Because we are not discussing biological ideas. Biologically, the notion of race is bunk, but we don't bring that up in every racism discussion.

What biologically...

Anyways, I've just finished reading Dawkins' Selfish Gene and I am even not particularly inclined to even view people as alive or capable of reproduction. Genes are what reproduces, while we -- their rebellious independent vehicles -- merely coalesce around them after meiosis.^-^

Eh.

Hmm.

A nebula may grow and kick wildly, but it's not a solar system until a sun ignites.

[Aeson]

I'm pro-choice up to the point where the fetus is consciously capable of reacting to stimulus. We can't pinpoint when this happens, but it's certainly not getting it's bottom spanked by the doctor that magically forms the neural pathways capable of thought and feeling.

When dealing with a human life, I think you have to err on the side of caution. 'Day after' pill is perfectly ok IMO. 1st trimester, ok, by the end getting iffy (detectable brain activity by week 8, but very unlikely to be conscious at that point of course). 2nd, you are definitely getting iffy. Besides, you should be able to figure out whether you want the abortion or not in 3 months. Somewhere in the second trimester IMO, it becomes killing a baby. 3rd trimester is definitely killing a person IMO. My twin sisters were born 8 1/2 weeks premature and needed an incubator to survive (even that wasn't enough for one of them). They were both alive, even though they couldn't survive on their own. (Hell, I couldn't survive on my own in many parts of the world...) So, would it have been ok to stick a needle in their heada at that point if the hospital didn't want to house them in the incubator?

Of course ideal is not to have unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Outside of rape, they are preventable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because we are not discussing biological ideas.

So abortion has nothing to do with biology?

The definition of a human being has nothing to do with biology?

That's an intriguing argument.

What then is this debate all about if not biology?

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson:

by the end getting iffy (detectable brain activity by week 8, but very unlikely to be conscious at that point of course). 2nd, you are definitely getting iffy. Besides, you should be able to figure out whether you want the abortion or not in 3 months. Somewhere in the second trimester IMO, it becomes killing a baby. 3rd trimester is definitely killing a person IMO.

So if we do not know whether we are dealing we a person, shouldn't we hold off?

That seems to me more reasonable than to kill before we are sure.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why don't we kill born people to redress the ecological balance?

[Ben Kenobi]

I nominate Combat Ingrid.

[Aeson]

BK,

I'm becoming convinced you just want to make us all quote ourselves:

When dealing with a human life, I think you have to err on the side of caution.

Until there is detectable brain activity I do not believe you can make any case for abortion being the killing of a person. At that point the fetus has less of a likelyhood of consciousness than any animal with a brain, and roughly the same chance as a plant.

While I'd think it would be great if no abortions ever happened, I think when you weigh the conscious desire of the mother against the non-existant desire of the fetus to live in that case, the mother's desire (as the only one) is most important.

I do not think there is anything inherently valuable about life. (Conscious) life places value on itself. So once consciousness is achieved there is value to life that needs to be taken into account.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I nominate Combat Ingrid.

I'm honoured

[Ben Kenobi]

(detectable brain activity by week 8, but very unlikely to be conscious at that point of course).

Aeson:

I'm not trying to be difficult, but your position needs more consideration.

Until there is detectable brain activity I do not believe you can make any case for abortion being the killing of a person.

Then why not set Week 8 as the point at which someone becomes a person? Why settle for an iffy position?

In saying otherwise, you are assuming not based on facts, but on probabilities.

How do we know that someone with detectable brain activity is not conscious?

At that point the fetus has less of a likelyhood of consciousness than any animal with a brain, and roughly the same chance as a plant.

How can someone with detectable brain activity not have a brain? Does detectable brain activity spring into being all at once? From nothing? No. Certain structures need to be in place before we can have any detectable brain activity. The development of the brain cannot be isolated from the development of consciousness, because the two are part of the same process.

Consciousness may be the culmination of brain development, but to see only consciousness distorts the sophisticated process required for consciousness to form.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So abortion has nothing to do with biology?

The definition of a human being has nothing to do with biology?

No, it's just that biology has a different definition from colloquial use.

"Radiation" covers a lot more in terms of physics than it does in colloquial use.

Ditto for "force", but quite the opposite for "power" and "energy".


Conception refers to the process where a big gamete with 23 chromosomes meets a fast gamete with 23 chromosomes. They merge and form a zygote with 46 chromosomes.

To me, saying that everything in Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen applies to such a zygote is absurd. Birth provides a convenient marker for the application.


We always tend to ignore basic views in these discussions, but to me brain == soul. When a brain comes into existence, so does its soul aspect. When a brain dies, the soul dies and is no more.

You, on the other hand, are a mind-body dualist and view these things differently.

[Aeson]

Then why not set Week 8 as the point at which someone becomes a person?

Because I didn't say brain activity.

My statement:

I'm pro-choice up to the point where the fetus is consciously capable of reacting to stimulus.

------------

How can someone with detectable brain activity not have a brain?

If you have trouble understanding a point, try to take a sentence in context with the rest of the post, and especially the paragraph it's in. The sentence preceeding the one you quoted is the context.

Here it is so you won't have to scroll:

Until there is detectable brain activity I do not believe you can make any case for abortion being the killing of a person.

---------------

The development of the brain cannot be isolated from the development of consciousness, because the two are part of the same process.

Until the brain is active there is no chance that it is running the "consciousness" program. There may be consciousness, but at that point the likelyhood is the same as a plant being conscious.

Consciousness may be the culmination of brain development, but to see only consciousness distorts the sophisticated process required for consciousness to form.

I don't care about the process that forms it, only the point where the conscious state is achieved. If you follow up on your logic here, not having sex is killing a person as it is negating the process that that person would be formed by.

[bipolarbear]

So people who are currently unconscious are no longer persons?

How long must someone be unconscious for such a conclusion to be drawn?

If you believe that a right can be lost due to extenuating circumstances, what would that say for a population that does not vote? Do they lose their right to liberty because they are lazy?

Only in a given election. if you don't vote in an election, isn'tthat pretty much giving up your right to liberty? But should liberty be forced upon them? Don't they have the right to vote, while not exercising it?

btw, I feel sorry for you bipolarbear. I escaped Catholic school after fourth grade.

I'm finally escaping it. My senior year will be one of purity. Miraculously it will also be well funded, and in Oregon !

Conception meets all of these standards.

Actually, according to my biased Catholic source, brain waves, which would show that there is a very very small level of what can be considered thought, happens a couple of weeks AFTER conception. So boom ther goes your whole conception thingy!

What then is this debate all about if not biology?

Well, there are many levels to this discussion otehr than biological.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson:

No dice. You do use the words, 'detectable brain activity'.

Quit dancing.

Your words, and quoted in my post above, and quoted by you in your last post.

(detectable brain activity by week 8, but very unlikely to be conscious at that point of course)

Until the brain is active there is no chance that it is running the "consciousness" program. There may be consciousness, but at that point the likelyhood is the same as a plant being conscious

Ah, but you do say 'detectable' brain activity. So why not date personhood to 8 weeks, to remain consistent to your own standard, and banning all abortions after 8 weeks?

I don't care about the process that forms it, only the point where the conscious state is achieved. If you follow up on your logic here, not having sex is killing a person as it is negating the process that that person would be formed by.

There is no distinct entity until conception.

[Ben Kenobi]

bipolarbear:

Well, there are many levels to this discussion otehr than biological.

True, but biology plays an important part.

How long must someone be unconscious for such a conclusion to be drawn?

Good question. The bioethical definition of brain death is the irreverseable cessation of brain activity. (that word again.)

The key word is irreverseable. One can currently lack brain activity, but still be a person.

happens a couple of weeks AFTER conception. So boom ther goes your whole conception thingy!

That dodges my point on capacity not being the equivalent of manifestation. One can have the capacity yet not use the capacity.

Don't they have the right to vote, while not exercising it?

Clever. Liberty must permit the party to have the right not to vote, just as much as it protects the right to vote.

The same applies here. Everyone deserves the right to live their life. Even unwanted unborn children. No one else can force that decision but them. Not even the mother.