Abortion and capital punishment

[Kramerman]

I am pro-choice. If a woman wants to abort, let her do so. It isnt murder. Born humans are sentient beings who have expereinced life, and if you take away their life, they would know what they rae missing. Fetii, reguardless of sentience or not, have not experienced life, and if you take their life away, they will never know what they are missing. It would be like if they never even developed at all.

*dons fire suit and kevlar vest*

Kman

[cae_raven]

Pro-Choice, baby

I rarely give in my two cents with issues, especially on forums, I usually just read, but I simply can't help myself. It's intersting seeing that most views being shared are from males (bear in mind i'm no feminist, oh god, I'm no such thing), although i can't know whether the percentage of men on here is really great, but it's my observation currently. Most all comments, have been said in regards to the child in question, I see this as valuing "lifelessness"(for lack of a better word) more than sentience. I believe the discussion should be viewed with the would-be mother, who has a consciousness, instead of the child in question. Isn't it the ability to reason and think more valuable than an unborn child. While I understand that the determination of the quality of life of the child is largely uncertain, and thus opinoins on this matter shouldn't be merited by this distinction.

The thing I want to challenge you all here, is to think in the prospective of the woman, and the economical and emotional change that incurs with the production of a child. If the woman deems that she is unwilling to sacrifice apart of her life for a child that has yet to have reason and sentience, then who is able to restrict her of her decision? The one thing I can not stand is when someone makes the decision for another.

As I am a very ardent pro-chioce type of person, and a woman, I say, let them do whatever the f*** they want, it's their choice" As it is possible to argue the point that an unborn "child" has a choice in the matter, i do believe this is not the case, b/c without sentience, no chioce can be made. and I define sentience, gerneally, as the ability to think and reason

[Ben Kenobi]

loinburger:

Not sporting?
That wasn't directed at you, loinburger, but towards the fellow who posted human beings have no value. For him, both terms are morally equivalent in the negative sense.

To answer your questions:

1. Is a brain-dead patient ethically equivalent to you and me?

No, because he has irreverseably lost his capacity to function as a person. In this sense, his the essence of his existence has changed.

He is human in the sense a corpse may be, though no longer really a human 'being' since he is no longer alive.

2. If not, then why is a zygote/embryo a "person" when a brain-dead patient is a "non-person"?

A zygote retains the intrinsic capacity or essence to function as a person, unlike the brain dead patient.

3. If the zygote/embryo is to be considered a person because there exists the possibility that it will develop into a person, then why is a zygote/embryo a "person" while a sperm/egg cell is a "non-person"?

The zygote is not a 'potential' person, but is an actual person if one defines personhood as I have above. In this sense, one may reject the concept of 'becoming' a person other than at conception.

Sperm/eggs do not possess this intrinsic capacity, as they are identical to their donor's DNA. They are a part of you, not of someone else.

[Ben Kenobi]

As I am a very ardent pro-chioce type of person, and a woman, I say, let them do whatever the f*** they want, it's their choice" As it is possible to argue the point that an unborn "child" has a choice in the matter, i do believe this is not the case, b/c without sentience, no chioce can be made. and I define sentience, gerneally, as the ability to think and reason.

cae_raven:

Ever hear about Susan B. Anthony? Feminism, as a doctrine does not need to be pro-choice. Remember, half the unborn children killed will be female. More than half in places like India and China who favour males. How do you justify the systematic extermination in these countries of a generation of female children through sex-selection?

Where do feminists believe it is proper to kill, maim and injure other females?

I agree, there are problems that women tend to bear the brunt of costs associated with child rearing. The question remains, do we try to fix the problems of the world to fit the children, or do we try to fix the children to fit the world?

Kramerman:
What about those who are deaf/blind/mentally handicapped? Can they properly 'experience life?'

[Kramerman]

Kramerman:
What about those who are deaf/blind/mentally handicapped? Can they properly 'experience life?'

why yes, of course they experience life. by experience, i mean they have lived, in one sense or another. Just because a blind/deaf/handicapped person percieves life differently, does not mean they experience life any less than anyone else.

An unborn fetus, however, has never experienced life, in any shape or form. By aborting it, you are doing no real crime, as it will not miss life becuase it has never seen what life is like. It wont miss it cause it never expereinced it. Its like, how would you ever miss smoking cigarettes, if you never smoked them to begin with? The answer is you would never miss them at all. Most deaf/blind/mentally handicapped would very much resent being terminated, as they have lived.

Kman

[cae_raven]

Susan B. ANthony? hmm...I take it she was female, correct? hah

Anywho, The sex of the unborn child has absolutly no relavence in my opinion, as I do not see that the unborn child is sentient. As for the fact in reference to India and China, I don't much care for this remark at all, I fail to see its relavence. And, thirdly, did I ever once say that the systematic extermination in these countries of a generation of female children through sex-selection is justified? No, I never said this, so it's unfair to me to make the assumption that i find this to be justified, or have ever considered that topic of Discussion.

Quote: "Where do feminists believe it is proper to kill, maim and injure other females?"

I don't see relavence in this question, I simply made the comment that I am in no way a feminist, so no one would think me as such. And secondly, the comment was not meant to have any implication on the doctorines regarding feminism.

If you could explain what you mean by your last question (even if it is rhetorical, as i'm seeing it now), I'm having a hrad time understanding it.

[Ben Kenobi]

K-man:

What about the life within the womb?

If deaf people can experience life and blind people can experience life, why not a fetus who is neither deaf nor blind?

What about an infant? An infant will not miss its life, so we are allowed to kill them?

Its like, how would you ever miss smoking cigarettes, if you never smoked them to begin with?

Well, that would work, except that I define life to begin at conception. A fetus, when aborted, would therefore be alive.

So when does life begin K-man? At birth?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by obiwan18
K-man:
What about the life within the womb?
If deaf people can experience life and blind people can experience life, why not a fetus who is neither deaf nor blind?
What about an infant? An infant will not miss its life, so we are allowed to kill them?
Well, that would work, except that I define life to begin at conception. A fetus, when aborted, would therefore be alive.
So when does life begin K-man? At birth?

life with in the womb is debatable. either way, it is a stage as far as I am concerned where the feti has not been exposed to life outside the womb, another stage. If the baby is born, its 'life' inside the womb ends, if it is aborted, its 'life' inside the womb ends also. Either way, the feti's 'life' (if you want to call it that) ends in the womb. IN the latter, however, the 'life' does not continue to the next stage, but rather ends. it does not matter, tho, as it has never experienced life outside of the womb anyway, and so would not know what it is missing as I explained above in my posts.

a fetus can not experience life like a deaf or blind man, as they have not been born yet to experience life. 'life' in the womb is a completely different circumstacne, and must be reguarded as such. thats why i refer to it as a seperate 'stage'

infants have "crossed over" into the stage of life. they may not be able to tell you that they would 'miss' life, but they have experienced it none the less, and taking away what they have experienced but not yet developed the sense to judge is unfair. Its like taking away a good book right after someone finishes reading it, and forbidding them to never think about that story again, before they even get a chance to reflect on the story.

life's begining is too debatable a point to even bother. to justify or injustify abortion, other means must be found around this bog of a question.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by cae_raven
Pro-Choice, baby

I rarely give in my two cents with issues, especially on forums, I usually just read, but I simply can't help myself. It's intersting seeing that most views being shared are from males (bear in mind i'm no feminist, oh god, I'm no such thing), although i can't know whether the percentage of men on here is really great, but it's my observation currently. Most all comments, have been said in regards to the child in question, I see this as valuing "lifelessness"(for lack of a better word) more than sentience. I believe the discussion should be viewed with the would-be mother, who has a consciousness, instead of the child in question. Isn't it the ability to reason and think more valuable than an unborn child. While I understand that the determination of the quality of life of the child is largely uncertain, and thus opinoins on this matter shouldn't be merited by this distinction.

The thing I want to challenge you all here, is to think in the prospective of the woman, and the economical and emotional change that incurs with the production of a child. If the woman deems that she is unwilling to sacrifice apart of her life for a child that has yet to have reason and sentience, then who is able to restrict her of her decision? The one thing I can not stand is when someone makes the decision for another.

As I am a very ardent pro-chioce type of person, and a woman, I say, let them do whatever the f*** they want, it's their choice" As it is possible to argue the point that an unborn "child" has a choice in the matter, i do believe this is not the case, b/c without sentience, no chioce can be made. and I define sentience, gerneally, as the ability to think and reason

I agree

[Ben Kenobi]

K-man:

Not to biologists. Human life begins at conception.

You seem to be defining life as outside the womb, at birth but I ask, what changes between a fetus at 9 months and an infant? How do their 'lives' differ?

A fetus can breathe, hear and respond to sounds from the outside environment. Mothers can feel their babies kick.

While the conditions inside of the womb might be very different from outside of the womb, but so is life for a deaf person, or a blind person.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by obiwan18
K-man:

Not to biologists. Human life begins at conception.

You seem to be defining life as outside the womb, at birth but I ask, what changes between a fetus at 9 months and an infant? How do their 'lives' differ?

A fetus can breathe, hear and respond to sounds from the outside environment. Mothers can feel their babies kick.

While the conditions inside of the womb might be very different from outside of the womb, but so is life for a deaf person, or a blind person.

See, thats the kicker. When a baby begins to respond to stimulii from the invironment, it is in effect experiencing that environment, as one who has been blind/deaf/mentally retarded from birth experiences life. So when a late stage fetus does begin to repond to environmental stimulii, then it can be considered to be experienceing life, adn from that point should not be aborted in my eyes, unless the mother was in mortal danger, and then it should be her call.

IIRC, a fetus cannot breathe. It gets its oxygen thru blood flow thru the ambilocal cord... but no matter.

Abortions at the zygote/ embrionic/ pre-response to stimulii fetus are acceptable. they have not experienced life.

[Ben Kenobi]

IIRC, a fetus cannot breathe. It gets its oxygen thru blood flow thru the ambilocal cord... but no matter.

After 21 weeks, the fetus' lungs are formed enough that it can breathe outside the womb.

How does a mother know she is pregnant, K-man?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
A zygote retains the intrinsic capacity or essence to function as a person, unlike the brain dead patient.

How can a zygote function as a person if it hasn't got any more of a brain than the brain-dead patient?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by obiwan18


After 21 weeks, the fetus' lungs are formed enough that it can breathe outside the womb.

How does a mother know she is pregnant, K-man?

I dont know. I suppose she ahs symptoms and then goes to the docter. I dont know how tis is relevent however. My point stands that there is nothing wrong with aborting a fetus (or earlier stage) that does not know what it will be missing.

[Ben Kenobi]

(bear in mind i'm no feminist, oh god, I'm no such thing).

My apologies cae. I thought you were a feminist, and then asking us to consider the position of the female.

The first part of my post only applies to feminists, so your point is well taken.

Still, what about my last point?

loinburger:

How can a zygote function as a person if it hasn't got any more of a brain than the brain-dead patient?

It can't. Leave the zygote in the womb, and it will form a brain. This is different from the brain-dead person.
Why does one have to function as a person to be one?

K-man

I dont know. I suppose she ahs symptoms and then goes to the docter. I dont know how tis is relevent however.

The symptoms arise from the physiological reponse of the mother to the embryo, and the reaction of the embryo to the presence of the mother. Therefore, the embryo can respond to the surrounding environment.