Abortion and capital punishment

[Ben Kenobi]

*obiwan warms his lightsaber*

But I was wondering how somebody who is pro-life and uses your argument against abortion makes an exception and allows it.

Garth Vader-

First off, I'd like to claim credit, but this is strictly Francis Beckwith.

As for abortion in the case of rape, there are several arguments.

1) How does rape change the unborn child? We do not believe that rape defiles a woman, so why should the child become a stain on the honour of a family?

2) Abortion punishes an innocent person, for the crime of someone else. The rapist has hurt the mother, so the unborn child has to die? This makes no sense.

While the mother is in a difficult position, since she has not consented, it still does not make it right to kill another person. In this case, we should offer as much support as needed.

[mactbone]

I'm wondering about some Pro-Life opinions that people who don't want kids should put them up for adoption.

I have a nephew that is adopted and my Aunt and Uncle knew the lady (through the agency) etc. etc. and when he was ~2 started calling and asking for pictures. A lot. You never know when someone will change their mind and stalk someone. You also don't know the kind of impact that being an adopted person could have on someone.

I'm not saying it's not an option, I'm just saying that it's not a perfect solution.

[Ben Kenobi]

MacTBone

Pro-lifers worth their salt will also support adoption as a viable alternative.

There are many women who want children, but can't have them, who would be very satisfied with adoption.

The problem is that the system needs to be streamlined to make it easier for mothers to find supportive families.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It seems like you've tried this .

It seemed like a good idea at the time...

Originally posted by obiwan18
However, how does one define 'brain activity substantively equivalent to a fully grown human?'
Would this be possible to detect?

IIRC, this was determined by performing EEG's on fetuses on whom surgery was being performed in utero. Lincoln posted a link to the article awhile back, I'll see if I can dig it up.

Why is it 'natural' to put a preemie on a respirator, but not someone who is brain-dead?

I'm not familiar with the term "preemie," but if you mean a child born prematurely, then the difference is that the child born prematurely has a functioning brain (prematurely born children don't survive unless they're well into the third trimester when born) while the brain-dead patient does not.

"Natural" doesn't really play into this, either. Both processes are equally "natural" IMO (both involve the same machinery, and both involve a human), but in the case of the prematurely born child the process is ethically justified, while in the case of the brain-dead patient the process is extraneous. I.e., in the case of the prematurely born child the action is a moral imperative, while in the case of the brain-dead patient it is not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Loinburger:

preemie = child born prematurely.
Sorry if this confused you.

Two factual points I'll source later, (dinner awaits).

Prematurely born children have survived as early as 21 weeks, within the second trimester as defined by Roe.

EEG's have successfully detected fetal brainwaves much earlier than the third trimester.

but in the case of the prematurely born child the process is ethically justified, while in the case of the brain-dead patient the process is extraneous. I.e., in the case of the prematurely born child the action is a moral imperative, while in the case of the brain-dead patient it is not.

Precisely. If you notice above, I address this point by saying that the biomedical definition of brain death is the irreverseable cessation of brain activity.

Treatment for the brain-dead is extraneous because the brain will not recover. While the zygote and a brain dead person share the same current brain capacity, the zygote counts as a person because it has the capacity to develop a brain, to improve upon currently non-existent brain function.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
preemie = child born prematurely.
Sorry if this confused you.

No problem, looks like I guessed correctly.

While the zygote and a brain dead person share the same current brain capacity, the zygote counts as a person because it has the capacity to develop a brain, to improve upon currently non-existent brain function.

Oh sure, I'd initially granted that the zygote/embryo has the potential to develop brain activity. It still strikes me as being a probability game, though -- the zygote/embryo isn't a person, there merely exists a possibility that it will develop into a person, just as there exists the (lesser) possibility that an unfused sperm or unfertilized egg will eventually form into a person. In both the case of aborting a zygote/embryo and in the case of preventing a sperm/egg from fusing (e.g. through use of a condom or through abstinence) a person has not been terminated -- all that has occurred is that the possibility of a person developing in this particular instance has been terminated. Each activity "kills" a person that doesn't even exist.

[Ben Kenobi]

there merely exists a possibility that it will develop into a person, just as there exists the (lesser) possibility that an unfused sperm or unfertilized egg will eventually form into a person.

What makes a person, though? Genetically, sperm and egg are two halves, that unite as a zygote. The zygote contains all the developmental instructions required to form a brain that can produce brain waves.

Otherwise, where do you set the decisive moment? Do you kill the child 1 day before her brain functions?

[ciaran]

I am pro-death of other human beings (so abortion is ok, too).

Chemotherapy is a sort of death penalty, isn't it? Lousy Cancer patients, mass-murdering their own cells. Have they no shame?

Cancer cells WILL kill you, whereas an infant may only in certain cases. But we really aren't referring to abortion performed in order to save the mother's life, are we? We are talking about abortions performed to CONVENIENCE the life of a mother. In this case abortion is kind of like plastic surgery, except what you are killing has a different genetic code than your body (even cancer cells can claim more similarity than a zygote).

Arguing for abortion and maintaining that human life has intrinsic value is impossible... because you are trying to argue the morality of abortion (it has none). Abortion is the means of convenience.

I support both the death penalty and abortion because I refuse to accept the assumption that human life has value. People should be executed for killing and raping other people, and the last thing we need on a 6 billion+ people planet is more babies (if not more irresponsible parents who raise children who grow up to be a**holes). An abortion arguement does not go very far, because I see the worth of a human being equal to that of a rock, or a bag of change. So what if we smash either?

ciaran

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
What makes a person, though?

A "human" is a new organism, i.e. a zygote. I'm using "person" to mean "a reasoning, thinking being that is ethically equivalent to all other reasoning, thinking beings." Technically, a brain-dead patient is still a human, but I would no longer consider the patient to be a "person." Ditto with the zygote, ditto with the embryo.

Otherwise, where do you set the decisive moment? Do you kill the child 1 day before her brain functions?

It's still the probability game at that point. There may be a higher probability that the fetus will develop an Atman/soul/whatever at point A than at point B, but it's still just probabilities until the unborn child's brain is functional.

[Urban Ranger]

As I thought, this thread would become yet another debate on abortion.

[loinburger]

It's a hotter topic than capital punishment.

[Urban Ranger]

Thought you had enough fun with that?

Like usual, we have the same line-up (except November Adam didn't show up this time) and same arguments.

Then again, what else can we have debate over, eh?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Thought you had enough fun with that?

:shrugs: It'd be a shame to waste all of those arguments I had with November Adam...

[Heresson]

This thread is not objective.
What You call "being pro-choice" is simply letting mothers murder their babies.

Chemotherapy is a sort of death penalty, isn't it? Lousy Cancer patients, mass-murdering their own cells. Have they no shame?

Cancers are part of themselves, they haven't got brains, they do not think, they do not feel.
I have not much against aborting a few cells that still haven't developed into anything, at the start, but after several weeks... how is it different from killing a baby after it crossed the magical gate of vagina?

And I am aginst death penalty as well. These of You that are Christians; please give people a chance to think about their deeds and change their lifes.

I'm clearly pro-choice. Unwanted children have nearly no chance of having a good/happy childhood, a good development, a good future. IMO, it prevents much despair to happen, and it prevents many jailbaits, bums, or simply suicidal people to even exist.

So it's better to kill a person than to give him a chance of being sad?
Many unwanted children will have happy childhood, and many "wanted" ones will have not.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Cancers are part of themselves, they haven't got brains, they do not think, they do not feel.
I have not much against aborting a few cells that still haven't developed into anything, at the start...

Then you are pro-choice. Welcome aboard.

but after several weeks... how is it different from killing a baby after it crossed the magical gate of vagina?

Well, it depends on your definition of "several weeks": but if you're still using "they haven't got brains, they do not think, they do not feel", then you're still pro-choice. We're not talking about "babies" yet.

This thread is not objective.
What You call "being pro-choice" is simply letting mothers murder their babies.

No, it isn't. Now the brainless, unthinking, unfeeling fetus is suddenly a "baby"? This is not objective. You're still pro-choice, but now you're opposed to late abortions.

So it's better to kill a person than to give him a chance of being sad?

Now you're talking about killing "a person"?

Please try to remain objective.