Abortion and capital punishment

[Imran Siddiqui]

PRO Death Penalty
PRO Choice

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


I just wanted to understand why you believe what you believe.

I can see that you aren't willing to examine that, so I will drop it. Sorry for the extra comment.

Ok then. Given the last words, I will try.

Why I'm against abortion. Someone spoke of the potential of a fetus, and that can just about sum it up, I guess.
TO ME, a life starts at the moment of life, not some arbitrary time period that makes it comfy for people to make decisions on aborting.
TO ME, abortions are the product of laziness and ignorance.
To ME, if the child is unwanted, put them up for adoption. There are many, many couples who love to have a baby, and can't.

Why I'm for the death penalty.
TO ME, what's the motivation for a prisoner who is locked up for life to curb his past behavior now that he's in prison?
The threat of killing someone else is of no consequence. Guard, other prisoner, people on the outside, following a successful escape. Oh yes. He Will try and escape.
That's natural to the human condition.
What will the authorities do, keep the prisoner's body locked up after he passes away naturally, or is killed by another murderer also serving life?
To ME, if society locks up habitual criminals, be it for theft or whatever, for life, then where's the elevation of penalty for a murderer?

That's enough. Ok?

[Sava]

Sloww, you're anti-choice then... not pro-life.

[Ramo]

How do you define sentience?

Elementary development of the brain and nervous systems. Roughly the second trimester.

[SlowwHand]

Shutup, Sava.

[Sava]

I'm just looking out for you SLowwy... I wouldn't want someone to call you a hypocrit.

[SlowwHand]

I may be a dumbass to Garth, but a hypocrite I am not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whoa...

Okay. First things first.

I'm Prolife and against the death penalty.

Starting with on-topic issues, and the addressing some of the pro-choice arguments, first up is Garth Vader.

Garth:

I'm going to defend slowwhand's position, although, as you notice, this is not my own. Abortion and the death penalty are two seperate issues. The way you seperate the issues is to make an exception clause for innocent human persons.

The essence of the argument is this:

a)Abortion kills an unborn child.
b)Unborn children are innocent human persons.
c)It is wrong to kill innocent human persons.

Therefore, killing abortion, as it kills an innocent human person, is wrong.

a) is a fact.
c) is a value.
Does anyone oppose c), that it is wrong to kill innocent human persons?

b) is the point we are debating.

Are unborn children innocent? The word innocent comes from a combination of two words, in, a prefix for not, and nocere, which means harmful. A good definition for English is without malice.

An unborn child cannot act with malice, as it has yet to attain the age of reason. Therefore, the unborn child is innocent.

Are unborn children human?
When we look at an infant, to determine the species, we first ask the species of the parent. Unborn children have human parents, therefore we categorise them as human.

In this sense, humanity begins at conception, because at conception an entirely new human being forms from the union of gametes, sperm and egg, distinct from the parents. We call this single cell a zygote. From the genetic code within the zygote, all the unborn child needs to grow and develop are the same things a born child needs, sustenance and shelter.

Finally, are unborn children persons?
As a legal and philosophical definition, each society chooses what it will recognise as a person. The rights entailed to personhood, at least for the unborn child, are to life, in that no other person or the state has the right to deprive the innocent child of life.

As the law stands, in both the US, Canada and most of Europe, birth is the beginning of personhood. Therefore, any determination of personhood must compare the unborn child with an infant, or other born people considered persons. What are the differences?

There are 4 major differences; size, development, dependency and environment.

The zygote, as a single cell is much smaller than an infant. However, the infant is much smaller than an adult. Do we consider an infant to be less of a person than an adult due to the difference in size? No. Therefore, size cannot determine personhood.

As a child in the womb of the mother, the zygote depends on the mother for food and shelter. It is not viable until the 20-21st week of gestation. However, how viable is an infant? By itself, it cannot survive. It requires food and care. Therefore, dependency cannot determine personhood.

The environment of the womb differs from the outside world all other people live. Could this be an essential difference? We do not base personhood on where one lives. One does not become more of a person by moving elsewhere. Why should the unborn child?

The zygote, as a single cell is much less developed than the infant. It cannot speak, or hear; it lacks a heart, a brain and lungs. The infant cannot speak, so that criterion must be rejected. Some infants are born deaf, so that criterion falls as well.

What about lungs? Some preemie infants cannot breathe on their own without use of a respirator. Once their lungs develop, they can be removed. We do consider the preemie to be a person, so therefore the unborn child must be so as well.

Currently functioning hearts also fail as a necessary critirion. We can stop a persons heart, and revive them within heart surgery. The patient does not stop being a person when his heart stops functioning, therefore having a currently functioning heart does not define personhood.

What about the brain. Surely the brain defines personhood. The definition of brain-death is the irreversable cessation of brain activity. The key word is irreversable. It is not the current capacity that matters, but the intrinsic capacity to function as a person.

The zygote has this intrinsic capacity, through the functioning genetic code inherited at conception. Therefore, the zygote should be regarded as a person.

[Odin]

I think abortion should be allowed before the 3rd trimester (no partial birth abortion). Basically the criterion is: could the fetus survive outside the mother. If not then it is not truely alive sice it cannot survive on it's own.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Odin
I think abortion should be allowed before the 3rd trimester (no partial birth abortion). Basically the criterion is: could the fetus survive outside the mother. If not then it is not truely alive sice it cannot survive on it's own.

For how long does it have to [have the potential to] survive? A 5th month baby can sometimes last for an hour on its own. Does this qualify? Or would it have to live for a few weeks? A few years? Or a normal human lifespan? Clarify, please. I agree with your statement, but it's vague.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Sava
This is a stereotype that has little merit. I have never heard anyone say that an infant is less than human.

I did and do think so. For some reason people have trouble with this point of view. I'll take the time to elaborate my point of view for all or anyone that cares.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to change anything about this or force my views on anyone. Still, for me it wouldn't make much of a difference to end the life in the form of an abortion or ending the life of a infant, from a theortical moral standpoint. For me a human individual are not defined by the biological definition of a homo sapiens. A human body is not the same as a human individual. Essence comes after existance. A infants self knowledge is no difference form any mammal. In this the infant is not much different from a foetus. A infant has no real self awareness, it doesn't know it will die (at some point) and it doesn't hold the qualities that for me defines an individual.

[Ben Kenobi]

I had feared that I killed the thread..

Essence comes after existance. A infants self knowledge is no difference form any mammal. In this the infant is not much different from a foetus. A infant has no real self awareness, it doesn't know it will die (at some point) and it doesn't hold the qualities that for me defines an individual.

Kropotkin:

May I slit your throat while you are under anaestetia?
When sedated you are no longer currently self-aware.

"it doesn't know it will die (at some point)."

Interesting. So if a five year old believes he will live forever, he is not a person? We can kill him whenever we want?

[Felch]

Kropotkin, would you have agreed with the NSDAP policy of eugenics in regards to the mentally retarded?

Not to call you a Nazi, just, in severe cases of mental retardation, would you consider people to not be human?

[Kropotkin]

The anaestaria argument is weak, why not as well talk about killing me while sleeping? As for being aware of ones future death was a example not the single point.

Well yes I wouldn't consider severe cases to be humans. But I would never want to make that judgement myself. The nazis thought they knew everything, I don't. Maybe it wasn't clear enough but this is a theoretical standpoint. I don't think humans that are reasonably healthy are really prepared to kill infants and that's something that has to be taken into consideration. While I might have this standpoint I don't advocate it's implementation at all. And it surely isn't the government that should chose as the NSDAP did. They included a lot of other persons into that that I would never consider non-humans.

It springs from my defence of abortions as there's a need for a definition of what is human, in real life I don't think a one year after birth limitation would be good for a number of other reasons.

[DinoDoc]

What's the difference between a 1 year old and a two year old anyway, Kroppy?