Abortion

[Tassadar500]

A fetus has emotion?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah, this is turning into a good discussion.

First of all, why should we accept Warren's criteria?

Secondly, how does one define their rather fuzzy terminology. Starting with the first one, consciousness. I don't know if you are aware, but many psychologists shun examination of the conscience, because it is very difficult to make any empirical measurements of conscience. Therefore, to base personhood on something you can't detect or measure is a bad criteria. Also, do people stop being a person when they are unconscious?

Secondly, emotion. How do we measure emotional response? Are folks with Asperger's less human than those with more emotion?

Thirdly, reason. If you have ever read Kant, since I am sure you will, you see this criteria there to. That folks must have a capacity to reason. Interestingly, he uses this to deny people capacity as moral agents, and argues that they have no rights once they have lost this capacity. So that's why I think reason is a poor criteria.

Fourthly, the capacity to communicate. The child in the womb can communicate to her mother, she can kick, she can do plenty of things to interact with her mother. So the unborn and a dog pass the communication criteria.

Fifthly, self-awarness. Again, the question of how does one measure self-awareness? Psychologists stay away from testing this too, since it lacks an empirical basis.

Sixthly, moral agency. I don't know why your prof is citing this one, since this is mostly jargon. Moral agency is based upon these other criteria, not a criteria in itself.

[Ben Kenobi]

A fetus has emotion?

Cries in the womb, shows facial expressions, etc. Emotions just don't start when you are born, UR.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Cries in the womb, shows facial expressions, etc. Emotions just don't start when you are born, UR.

What the hell? You are either delusional, or Jesus reborn.

"Before Abraham, you are."

Also, I am a colossus among men, bestriding the forums like, um, a colossus

[Ben Kenobi]

Go watch an ultrasound dude.

Geez, you'd think you were amish or something.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Go watch an ultrasound dude.

Geez, you'd think you were amish or something.

Good job.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Quick one for person

Person: Any living human.

That's just a bit circular don't you think?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, why should we accept Warren's criteria?

Post your own list, then.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Go watch an ultrasound dude.

Geez, you'd think you were amish or something.

Just how many ultra sounds have you seen Bk I for one have seen 3, 3 mind you and not one of them made a facial movement. Oh, and for your I (the fetus) am making cmmunication with my mother by kicking oh for gods sake get real the fetus is in a bag of fliud bouncing around. Kicking is because they are moving not because they are sayin hey mom i am here hello. I am not one to sit here and try to decide what is right for any one, unlike Bk. There is no choice to be made for any one, other then the person that is responisble for bringing such fetus into the world. This choice doesnt belong to any one else. And if you disagree then by all eans get ur self pregnant and do as you wish
I read, were you Kenobi, your talking about eptopic pregnancy,in this case abortionis ok, why is that,is it because i took the time to tell you. What the **** is happening here. I think you said abortion is wrong even if it threatens the mother. BUt here its ok cause the fetus has no chance at survival cause it implanted in the tube of the woman, go figure you can change your mind when it suits you and ell how bout if the placenta starts to tear away from the uterus threatning both mother and baby with no chance of survival for either if left as is, is this ok to or do we force this mother to risk her life as well? I am not sure what is technically ok for those folks that are able to decide what is right and wrong for every one like bk and the cronies. Sorry BK this is not apersonal attack but your logic and things you are sayng seem to apply when you say they do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just how many ultra sounds have you seen Bk I for one have seen 3, 3 mind you and not one of them made a facial movement.

The best ones that I have seen were in Life magazine not too long ago. I'll have to dig around and see if I can't find a link to them. The detail was fantastic.

Oh, and for your I (the fetus) am making cmmunication with my mother by kicking oh for gods sake get real the fetus is in a bag of fliud bouncing around. Kicking is because they are moving not because they are sayin hey mom i am here hello.

That's the problem with the definition based upon communication. Communication is based upon the understanding of both parties, rather then on any characteristic of one person.

I read, were you Kenobi, your talking about eptopic pregnancy,in this case abortionis ok, why is that,is it because i took the time to tell you. What the **** is happening here. I think you said abortion is wrong even if it threatens the mother

If I did, I need to clarify it here. I believe that if you cannot save both the mother and her child that you are permitted to save the life of the mother because it is better to save one then allow two to die.

Sorry BK this is not apersonal attack but your logic and things you are sayng seem to apply when you say they do.

No it's not a personal attack at all, and you raise a very good point. What about those cases where the mother's life is in danger other then ectopic pregnancy? I'm not sure at what point in the pregnancy the placenta will start to tear away from the mother. If it happens after viability, then you should have a chance to save the child and the mother, and there would be no need for the abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ahh, that was easy.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021111/

[Mrs. Tuberski]

In case of the placenta tearing away sometimes it can be fst or short. YOu are some times not at liberty to choose in time period that saed both mother and fetus. It can happen very fast where the fetus must be sacrificed so the mother doesnt belled to death. Ad by the way if the placenta tears away fromt he uterus fast enough there is no saving the fetus. and if the mother is aware of this already happening she is making life or death decesion for herself if she is able to keep the fetus intact and alive. some woman are scared and may not be willing to make that decesin but i dont think they need ot be chastized for it.
As far as your sonograms geez i was talking bout how many you actully saw in person. I dont think anyone can get a detail out of a still songraphic pic. What you have to understand is that pic is subject to personal visuizalition and interpertation. IE a pic of a sonogram seems to show a fetus sucking thumb when it could actually be just the fetuses hand is up near its mouth with no finger in the mouth. Personal interpertattion. I dont think it can really be proven the fetus actualy has a thumb in its mouth and if it can the fetus is far beyond the legal means of an abortion.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by ajbera
I think many folks believe God has a "hands off" approach to governing His/Her/Its creations.

I'm a Roman Catholic, and I know from previous experience that fellow Catholics pray for saints to intercede with god- to reduce someone else's suffering, or cure them. Or they pray directly to god, like Protestants and Muslims and Jews.


I'm well aware from familiarity with the unpleasant Puritan religious literature of the 16th and 17th Century that English Protestants saw the hand of god in punishments or diseases or natural disasters inflicted on Catholics, enemies of the state or in North America, the Indians.


But then, some Religionistas like to have it both ways- god only intervenes when it suits them to think so.


Like the killing of Egypt's first born.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There are plenty of folks willing to adopt.

Oh, well done for spotting that- I know several gay and lesbian couples that have done so, and some that would like to.

However, I'm also aware that despite your fond imaginings of 'plenty' (I note you don't actually give a figure, or indeed any statistics to back this up) those children's homes and orphanages never seem to empty.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

And secondly, do you believe that a man is unnecessary in a child's life, molly?

It's difficult to produce a foetus without one, I'm told.


But then I don't think having a set of male genitals automatically qualifies someone to be a good parent, nor indeed do I think that simply being heterosexual means you'll be a good father or mother, or create the right environment for a child to grow up in.


And I'm also aware that single parent families have successfully raised children.