Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm impressed. Lots of good responses here.

Starting with Proteus:

Baruch Brody, Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life: A Philosophical View (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1975).

"At 40-43 days, the embryo's brain waves can be detected by an electroencephalogram"

Why should capacity to brain waves determine human personhood? Brain death is defined as an IRREVERSABLE cessation of brain activity, rather than a temporary cessation. This is different from the embryo. A developing embryo, has the intrinsic capacity to develop brain waves, unlike someone who is brain dead and cannot be revived.

Secondly, what has to happen before brain waves are produced? Like you said, it takes time to develop synapses and neurons. Do we abort someone at 39 days because they are close, but not quite fully developed?

"Not to forget, that with this argument you schouldn´t treat Diseases, because almost all of them are caused by bacteria which are definitely life,"

Where do I say prolife means preserving all life? My definition of personhood excludes viruses, since they cannot attain sentience, they do not have the inherent capacity to develop sentience.


Now for Jack.

"From the woman's perspective, having an abortion after rape is like being cut free of the wreckage after a car crash."

"It is "immoral" to cut them free, even if they had been wearing a seatbelt, as this would absolve them from the consequences of the risk they accepted."

"to FORCE a woman to carry a hated parasite"

Your example assumes that the unborn are not persons, the point being debated. Why do we cut wreckage? Because wreckage is just metal. Abortion is only immoral if another person is involved.

How is the unborn child then different from you now? Are you completely independent of other people? If not, then by your own definition, you are a parasite.

"These need to be offset against the danger of death during childbirth."

Waited for this point. Couple things.
Just because childbirth may kill me, am I justified in killing someone else to ensure my safety? The unborn child has nowhere else to go.

Suppose a hobo comes on my doorway, in the middle of a snowstorm. Do I turn the hobo away because I'm afraid he may have a knife, and he may kill me? Even if I don't see a knife? Even if I know he will die in the storm if I let him go?

Pregnancy is very safe. Less than 7 and 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US according to the CDC.


Urban Ranger-

"Yes, but sex cells don't become zygote automatically either."

Zygotes form after sex. Cells need to be coaxed even when they are cells. A zygote requires nothing other than nourishment and shelter to grow and develop, same as an infant or any of us.

"How does that make a difference? Not all individuals have unique DNA codes."

Right- identical twins are genetic copies of each other, even though they are seperate individuals. Point well taken. The code is human, that is the most important part.

"Besides, infants are already outside, so it's not really applicable to the abortion debate."

If sentience = personhood, non-sentience = non-personhood. If infants are not persons, then we should have no qualms about killing them. That is the relevancy to the debate.

Are you arguing that personhood is based on whether you are inside or outside the womb?


And the toughest for last,
Cyclotron.

"Not a legal responsibility, though. You may think that a family is all about obligations to each other, but the law doesn't see it that way, and this is a legal issue."

"A person's right to life does not, and never will, confer an obligation to help on anybody."

Pregnancy is different from saving a person on drowning in the river. By the time you know you are pregnant, you are already in the river, holding onto the person.

What about negligence? Doesn't a mother have a responsibility to care for her children? Why her, and why not somebody else?

Again, I'll repeat my earlier line, every right has a corresponding responsibility. Just as free speech confers a responsibility on the state to respect the speakers, or freedom of religion prevents the state from closing places of worship, so should the right to life prevent people from killing the unborn child.

Otherwise why have a right to life at all?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
If you leave sperm alone, will it become anything more than just sperm? No. The same is with an egg. However, a zygote is different.

Not true. If you leave a zygote alone, it will die too. It needs to be nurished and fed and have a warm place to sleep.

Should a pregnant woman not taking care of herself be criminal? Should eating disorders when pregnant be criminal? Should drinking or smoking when pregnant be criminal? Should not drinking water, not doing everything you can to make sure you have a healthy baby, like taking vitamins, be criminal?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
How come John Kennedy gets assassinated and this pud is walking around the country, turning it into his own private little relgious cult... f*ck Bush... I'll spit on him if I ever meet him.

So now, Sava, you spit on the religious? I find it interesting that you single out for hate people of high morality that seek to protect life and Liberty, while complementing the cruel, the barbarous and the torturers. I see you have a fundamental grasp of right and wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Should a [mother] not taking care of herself be criminal? Should eating disorders when [parenting] be criminal? Should drinking or smoking when [parenting] be criminal?
Should not drinking water, not doing everything you can to make sure you have a healthy [child], like taking vitamins, be criminal?"

tandee, any mother who loves her child whether unborn or already born will not deliberately do things that are harmful to her children. Your points can only be dealt with once you assume the unborn is a human person.

Cases where this is a concern, such as drug abusers, you have to remember that the mother has her own problems to deal with.

Are these problems best dealt by arresting pregnant mothers? No. Counselling, and rehab programs do help both the mother and her child.

What forms these would take, I do not know. Perhaps others can contribute?

[DinoDoc]

Sigh...

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
How is the unborn child then different from you now? Are you completely independent of other people? If not, then by your own definition, you are a parasite.

No, I think you have your two definitions of dependence mixed up. We depend on other people in that we have grown used to a division of labors which allows us to voluntarily exhange that which we have produced for that which others have produced. Comparing this to forcing an unwilling participant to provide you with your every sustenance is negligent.

Waited for this point. Couple things.
Just because childbirth may kill me, am I justified in killing someone else to ensure my safety? The unborn child has nowhere else to go.

Yes. If someone is going to kill you, you have the right to kill them.

Suppose a hobo comes on my doorway, in the middle of a snowstorm. Do I turn the hobo away because I'm afraid he may have a knife, and he may kill me? Even if I don't see a knife? Even if I know he will die in the storm if I let him go?

That's up to you. But you certainly don't have a responsibility to do so.

Pregnancy is very safe. Less than 7 and 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US according to the CDC.

Can you find us the statistics for a woman who has a disorder which causes pregnancy to be more dangerous for her?

Zygotes form after sex. Cells need to be coaxed even when they are cells. A zygote requires nothing other than nourishment and shelter to grow and develop, same as an infant or any of us.

But none of us, ever, has the right to demand these things of anyone except the person who has chosen to take on that responsibility. (I know that you will answer that having sex is taking on the responsibility of parenthood. However, I think we should agree to disagree on that.)

Right- identical twins are genetic copies of each other, even though they are seperate individuals. Point well taken. The code is human, that is the most important part.

I think you said the most important part was being sentient, or having the compacity for sentience? What about those with brain defects?

"Besides, infants are already outside, so it's not really applicable to the abortion debate."

If sentience = personhood, non-sentience = non-personhood. If infants are not persons, then we should have no qualms about killing them. That is the relevancy to the debate.

I think it's not really applicable because there are others who can be repsonsible for infants outside the womb, like the father. Or others who would choose to take on that responsibility.

What about negligence? Doesn't a mother have a responsibility to care for her children? Why her, and why not somebody else?

What if the mother dies right after childbirth. Then no one is responsible for them?

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Bush doesn't want to go to war. If he were a warmonger, he would already be at war with Iraq.

The only reason that he's not at war is because the rest of the world, and now the US public, won't let him.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Clinton would never have announced something to this effect.

Because he was a lot smarter than Bush.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

That being said, I don't support the war for the same reason I don't support abortion- what gives us the right to kill these Iraqis?

Oil.

[tandeetaylor]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by obiwan18 tandee, any mother who loves her child whether unborn or already born will not deliberately do things that are harmful to her children. Your points can only be dealt with once you assume the unborn is a human person.

I agree, but can we impose the legal responsibility of taking care of yourself upon a person who doesn't agree with you or care?

Are these problems best dealt by arresting pregnant mothers? No. Counselling, and rehab programs do help both the mother and her child.

What if they don't go, or don't want to go, or fail to succeed?

What forms these would take, I do not know.

Well, be more prepared to carry out your proposals to their complete implication, or stop advocating them.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Women make the choice whether to have sex or not. Slaves do not have a choice whether or not to be slaves.

I suppose rape isn't part of your vocabulary. How about being so economically dependant on men that they have no choice but cater to someone else's wishes. What about the "Love and Leave Them" guys. Should the lives of both the woman and the child be miserable because of the poverty that many single mothers face?

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Approximately 90% of the women who have an abortion record some kind of negative effect afterwards, whether it be depression or something more serious.

That is such a silly argument. Of course they're going to feel depressed about their decision. It's part of a woman's biology to feel a bond for the child they carry. Do you think that women go through the procedure just for the hell of it? It's a very painful choice for them.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
And the toughest for last,
Cyclotron.

I'm flattered.

"Not a legal responsibility, though. You may think that a family is all about obligations to each other, but the law doesn't see it that way, and this is a legal issue."

"A person's right to life does not, and never will, confer an obligation to help on anybody."

Pregnancy is different from saving a person on drowning in the river. By the time you know you are pregnant, you are already in the river, holding onto the person.

I can't see any difference between a grown person who needs you for life support (or to save their life) and a fetus who requires the mother for life, at least morally speaking. Whatever obligations you may attach to motherhood above and beyond what I have stated are not reflected in the critical analysis of morality or in law.

What about negligence? Doesn't a mother have a responsibility to care for her children? Why her, and why not somebody else?

The mother has a responsibility to care for her children because she brought them into the world, so to speak. Negligence is when you accept a duty, such as caring for a child, and then renege on that obligation in a harmful way. In the case of rape, the duty was not accepted, and so the mother does not have a moral obligation and thus cannot be charged with negligence. To charge a raped woman who had an abortion would be like conscripting a man against his will to watch your children, and then charging him when he fell asleep and your kids fell into the pool. Because he never agreed to take care of your kids in the first place, he can't be obligated to make sure of their safety; he is not negligent. Forcing somebody to take care of a child and then charging that person with negligence when the child dies sounds an awful lot like slavery: you are forcing someone to take care of children for you and be responsible for those children. That's not motherhood; it's more like a slave nanny (if there is such a thing).

Again, I'll repeat my earlier line, every right has a corresponding responsibility. Just as free speech confers a responsibility on the state to respect the speakers, or freedom of religion prevents the state from closing places of worship, so should the right to life prevent people from killing the unborn child.

A right has a responsibility, but a right of one person cannot force a responsibility on another. The rights you speak of, freedom of religion or speech, do not convey any responsibility. The right to life only protects a person from being needlessly killed. Even if the right to life meant that none of us has the right to die, that right still does not impose obligations on other people.

Otherwise why have a right to life at all?

The right to life is important, but it does not supercede the rights of others: I can't for example, take thousands of dollars from unwilling people in order to pay for my own operation to keep me alive. I have a right to life, but in that case it does not supercede the right of those people to their property. In the same way, that kidney failure guy from my previous analogy may have a right to life, but it does not cancel out my right to privacy and my own body. A fetus may have a right to life, but that does not supercede the woman's right to her own body.

[Ben Kenobi]

Willem-

I conceded that point with Bush. Since then, I have just been defending the second half of the statement-
Is Bush right to defend the sanctity of life?

Tandee-

"Comparing this to forcing an unwilling participant to provide you with your every sustenance is negligent."

How is an infant different from an unborn child in this regard? Why not kill your infant because you are unwilling to provide it with every sustenance?

"Can you find us the statistics for a woman who has a disorder which causes pregnancy to be more dangerous for her?"

Do your own research.

"What about those with brain defects?"

What kind of brain defects do you refer to? I've been arguing that having the intrinsic capacity for sentience makes one a person.

"What if the mother dies right after childbirth. Then no one is responsible for them?"

Nope, the father should be responsible. Said that before.

"I think it's not really applicable because there are others who can be repsonsible for infants outside the womb, like the father. Or others who would choose to take on that responsibility. "

You pull the child out of the womb you kill the child. I'm comparing abortion to infanticide, why would one be right and the other wrong. How can someone else 'be responsible' for a child who is already dead?

(edited for spelling)

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

If there is only one person, then no justification is necessary for abortion. None whatsoever. If there is two, then both need to be considered.

Exactly. And it's the mother's role to determine what she feels is best for her child. That's what parents do. If the mother feels that living in poverty, or being in an abusive situation, is not in the best interests of her child, then she has the right to end that pregnancy before the child has a chance to experience misery.