Fair is fair . . . Georgia Democrats propose an anti-vasectomy bill

[notyoueither]

An abortion prior to some point in fetal development like brain activity is little different than the removal of an unwanted growth, unless viewed through the lens of certain religions or other self-imposed strict moral code.

[Elok]

Brain activity is no more significant a milestone than first cell division, first breath or first harpsichord recital (why should it be?). You're killing the same entity regardless of the developmental stage you kill it at.

[giblets]

Brain activity is no more significant a milestone than first cell division, first breath or first harpsichord recital (why should it be?). You're killing the same entity regardless of the developmental stage you kill it at.

If something is "human" but it doesn't have any thoughts or feelings (and a lack of brain activity makes it certain that it doesn't have those things) then how can it be considered a someone who experiences things? There would seem to be an entity that exists in a fully grown human but doesn't exist in a fetus that only has two cells.

[notyoueither]

Brain activity is no more significant a milestone than first cell division, first breath or first harpsichord recital (why should it be?). You're killing the same entity regardless of the developmental stage you kill it at.

Killing the entity is morally permissible under various circumstances and moral codes.

Euthanasia would be one such circumstance.

I agree with the premise that killing a living or viable human infant is morally wrong unless done for very good reason. I disagree that we need to assign the value of a viable infant to a clump of cells with no brain.

[MRT144]

Brain activity is no more significant a milestone than first cell division, first breath or first harpsichord recital (why should it be?). You're killing the same entity regardless of the developmental stage you kill it at.

Dogs are people too.

[Elok]

If something is "human" but it doesn't have any thoughts or feelings (and a lack of brain activity makes it certain that it doesn't have those things) then how can it be considered a someone who experiences things? There would seem to be an entity that exists in a fully grown human but doesn't exist in a fetus that only has two cells.

We have no way of knowing, one way or another, what exactly is going on in the mind of an unborn child, or for that matter of a newborn--they have too little control over their bodies to communicate or reveal anything about what's going on in there. In all likelihood, what is going on at any given point in time in utero is not what you or I would recognize as thought, or at least any thought that couldn't be thought just as well or better by a cow. A pig or an octopus or a common crow is far more of a "person" than any month-old child by that metric. You're basing your idea of their humanity on a projection.

And, at any rate, why should we derive our worth from thoughts and feelings? My son is a wad of conflicting instincts and urges who has only recently shown any evidence at all of higher thought. His feelings for the first month were largely confined to contentment and various degrees of rage. I still love him, because he is my child, a distinct and unique member of my species, which he began to be from the moment sperm fused with egg.

[Elok]

Dogs are people too.

No, they're canids. Lovable subhumans.

[Elok]

Killing the entity is morally permissible under various circumstances and moral codes.

Euthanasia would be one such circumstance.

Not under all moral codes, but provided consent is given, I'm fine with it. I don't see how this is relevant, TBH. I didn't say "you can't kill it ever," I just said it's the same entity, which is manifestly true. One form grows into another in a smooth transition.

I agree with the premise that killing a living or viable human infant is morally wrong unless done for very good reason. I disagree that we need to assign the value of a viable infant to a clump of cells with no brain.

Because? You're killing the same organism either way. It's just a different stage of development. Any thoughts it may be thinking in its shiny new brain are a purely hypothetical postulate on your part and, as I said to Gribbler, are highly unlikely to be more complex than a barnyard animal's in any case.

[giblets]

We have no way of knowing, one way or another, what exactly is going on in the mind of an unborn child, or for that matter of a newborn--they have too little control over their bodies to communicate or reveal anything about what's going on in there. In all likelihood, what is going on at any given point in time in utero is not what you or I would recognize as thought, or at least any thought that couldn't be thought just as well or better by a cow. A pig or an octopus or a common crow is far more of a "person" than any month-old child by that metric. You're basing your idea of their humanity on a projection.

And, at any rate, why should we derive our worth from thoughts and feelings? My son is a wad of conflicting instincts and urges who has only recently shown any evidence at all of higher thought. His feelings for the first month were largely confined to contentment and various degrees of rage. I still love him, because he is my child, a distinct and unique member of my species, which he began to be from the moment sperm fused with egg.

I can understand empathy for a cow, octopus or month-old (as in, born a month ago ) human. The position of having empathy for an embryo doesn't make sense to me. A crow might have more problem-solving abilities than an infant but they both actually have a mind, although I don't think extinguishing a crow mind is such a big deal.

[MRT144]

since when is personhood limited to humans.

[Elok]

I can understand empathy for a cow, octopus or month-old (as in, born a month ago ) human. The position of having empathy for an embryo doesn't make sense to me. A crow might have more problem-solving abilities than an infant but they both actually have a mind, although I don't think extinguishing a crow mind is such a big deal.

But why? If you've established cognition as the important quality here, and you're ignoring potential later ability, why is a crow less worthy of your esteem than a human with lesser reasoning powers? Is it just that the human is cuter? What if it's a panda bear genetically engineered to have crow-like reasoning ability? Is it more or less than a baby then?

[Elok]

since when is personhood limited to humans.

Since we started eating some of the things that weren't human, and keeping the rest in cages. With some overlap between the two, of course.

[DaShi]

Killing the entity is morally permissible under various circumstances and moral codes.

Euthanasia would be one such circumstance.

I agree with the premise that killing a living or viable human infant is morally wrong unless done for very good reason. I disagree that we need to assign the value of a viable infant to a clump of cells with no brain.

Most people don't enjoy killing and don't want to. But this is generally a human phenomenon and a fairly recent one. Killing, even of one's own species is especially common in nature. In fact, it is often necessary for the survival of the species. In fact, it has been an integral part of human society since there was a human society. Abortions, no matter how abhorrent they are to some people, are much more humane than previous practices. So I guess I can only say it's a perfectly normal, routine function of biology which has happened several trillion times already, so why are we flapping our hands and talking about it like it's a big cosmic injustice and the whole universe is out to screw human babies over?

[DaShi]

Since we started eating some of the things that weren't human, and keeping the rest in cages. With some overlap between the two, of course.

So spiders are humans now.

Such arbitrary definitions do not move the discussion forward. Quite the contrary, in fact.

[giblets]

So spiders are humans now.

Such arbitrary definitions do not move the discussion forward. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Humans aren't if they're caged. That's why the death penalty is accepted by many pro-lifers.