Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

[rah]

And interesting enough, if the person is in a coma and signed an agreement not to continue life support in that condition, I have no problem with pulling the plug. (CHOICE, gee what a concept) Now if no agreement was signed (and I had no clue what the person would have wanted) it get's less clear and I would probably lean toward keeping life support on.

[Straybow]

[Q=rah;5675996]Geeze, that was pathetic. You base your entire arguement on the experience of two out of the millions of women that were raped.[/Q] No, I gave two (or really three counting my friend's mom) anecdotes that support my argument, not the other way around.

I know one woman that woke up every day screaming because her pregnancy reminded her of her violation. She eventually got better after years of therapy and an abortion. Granted I don't know what would have happened if she had carried to term but I think it's really conceited on your part that you think you know what was best for her.

So after the abortion she continued waking up screaming because the memory was still there? The abortion itself doesn't seem to have anecdotally hastened her recovery. Not a very compelling example. Now, if you can find one who woke up screaming while pregnant and then woke up all smiles and humming happy tunes after abortion you'd have a point.

What if you wife woke up every day wanting to kill herself to attempt to erase the memory of her attack. And despite all you assurances she still didn't want to carry the child anymore. Even believing that the desire to rape could be genetic and she was fearful of raising someone prone to rape. Would you tell her that all her fears were totally unfounded and that she must carry the baby to term. Yes, that's treating her like property.

Pregnancy is an emotional rollercoaster of hormones to begin with. If she's fearful of raising someone prone to rape because of conjectured rape gene then give the baby up for adoption to someone who doesn't have such a fear.

How about praying that God heal the postulated rape gene? There are better solutions than abortion. Even for agnostics who aren't sure God exists or heals, there is therapeutic value to directing one's attention off one's problems and focusing desire on the weal of another. Harnessing the nurturing drives to dispel the fight-or-flight response is very healthy.

I don't know that you fall into this group, but many of the liberal weenies who are so pro-abortion (kill the foetus because it might grow up to become a rapist) are the ones who are against the death penalty (don't kill the ones who actually have raped, murdered, etc). That seems not only inconsistent but a perversion of morality.

I, for one, do not oppose killing adults who have committed capital crimes. I do oppose killing babies because momma has a hard time dealing with the fact that some bastard raped her.

[Lorizael]

Scientifically, an embryo/fetus is a distinct human organism. So is somebody who is brain dead and kept alive by a respirator etc. If you believe that an unthinking human organism is a Person, then abortion is wrong as is unplugging the brain dead guy. If you believe that an unthinking human organism is not a Person, then abortion is a-ok (at least until the third-ish trimester) as is unplugging the brain dead guy. If you use some other definition of personhood then the abortion may or may not be okay and unplugging the brain dead guy may or may not be okay. In other words, science isn't a whole lot of help here.

I don't see why science isn't a whole lot of help. Your examples above help to clarify values. There are certainly those that would believe unplugging a brain dead guy is wrong, and there are those that are okay with abortion and unplugging. And there are different definitions of personhood, such as those that include sentience, sapience, etc. The tricky part is in actually defining sentience and sapience, and that's where further study in neuroscience comes in.

As far as I'm concerned, I see no reason to waste the potential intelligence that can be found in a fetus and in a brain dead person. Both should be stored until they can be properly cultivated.

[Jon Miller]

And as I've stated I don't believe in late term abortions, so there is no arguement here. It's the first trimester ones that are up for discussion (at least fore me) And to me the coma example is different because the person already was a human so it's different and I refuse to compare it.

Then why do you argue that it is a personal thing?

Why aren't you desiring to change the law?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Unconsciousness (voluntary as in a normal wake-sleep cycle or involuntary as in e.g. under sedation) != brain dead. I'm opposed to killing people who are asleep.

Are people in comas under sedation? I guess you could say that they are under self-imposed sedation.

JM

[Felch]

WHY is it so important for you to intrude into others personal life's based on an opinion.

Because innocent people are dying. You might think it's just an opinion that a fetus is human, but it's not. What defines humanity (according to Merriam Webster) is being a Homo sapiens. It has nothing to do with how old you are.

From wikipedia:

The human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals. The zygote divides inside the female's uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of thirty-eight weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a human fetus. After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.

No one seriously argues that a human zygote is actually a chicken or crocodile. It is undeniably human. The only question is whether we extend to these humans the same rights that we extend to other humans. Right now there are people who are unwilling to do so, and that's a tragedy. But instead of accepting this bigotry, some people feel an obligation to protect those who can't even look to their parents for protection.

The only person who is basing their argument on opinion is you, rah. Science is clearly in favor of a fetus's humanity. If you want to say that some humans don't share the rights that other humans enjoy, fine. But don't deny the humanity of someone just because they're young and small. And don't pretend like I'm imposing on you for using an accurate definition.

[Wezil]

Potential human.

Not there yet.

[Felch]

WTF? A human is a human. The life cycle begins at conception. Find a (non-partisan) biologist who would call a fetus a "potential human" and you'll have a leg to stand on. Otherwise you're about as scientific as some bible thumping creationist.

[loinburger]

Are people in comas under sedation? I guess you could say that they are under self-imposed sedation.

Somebody under sedation is comatose. Ditto somebody who's been thwacked with a crowbar or whatever. On a related note, firefox's spellchecker considers "thwacked" to be a real word.

[Jon Miller]

You're lucky your life partner shares you values here so you will never have to make that difficult choice.

And you still keep babbling about respecting the immoral, blah blah blah, it's only your opinion that it's immoral. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it won't change.

And I don't care if you respect my opinion, (even though we really agree here) I just care that you can't force your's on me based on YOUR opinoin.

WHY is it so important for you to intrude into others personal life's based on an opinion.
Take care of your own house and leave others to theirs.

Because it isn't an opinion as far as our society assigns opinions (we don't regard science as opinions).

And it is important to me, just like ti is important to me that people don't go around murdering others in RL. If there was some law saying it was OK to murder black people, I would also be up in arms on internet forums and in my vote.

Possibly I would even be physically active (as some people were in the 19th century) or violent. I just don't beleive that violence does any good here.

JM
(I would say that over 50% of the reason I have ever voted for Republicans is because of abortion.)

[rah]

I'm not arguing that a fetus is human. I'm arguing that I'm now sure when it becomes a person. Science hasn't signed off on that one yet. So aborting a two cell entity is not murder, nor a 4 cell, and when it's actually a person and should be considered murder is the discussion here. You have your OPINION and others Have their's. No one can prove who's right. In those cases, you have to respect other's opinion. You won't get any argument that when the baby is viable outside the womb that it's a person. (at least from most people) but when it does, that's still open to scientific debate regardless of your word smithing.

Obviously you don't care what other's think, you're right and everyone else is wrong.
That sounds no different then extremist Islamics.

And stray, anyone that brings up hormones when discussing women really shouldn't.
Nothing makes you look like you treat women like chattel when you say things to infer they don't really know what they're doing due to hormones.

[Jon Miller]

There isn't any wordsmithing involved. A baby in the third trimester has all the same physical properties as one at 1 month or whatever.

It isn't opinion, it is fact (as much as anything can be fact) from a scientific materialistic perspective that the fetus is a human in the third trimester.

You saying it is opinion doesn't make it any more so than the earth orbiting the sun or evolution being opinion.

JM

[rah]

You've stopped listening, I agreed that it was human, but not a person. That you don't seem to want to address. So I'm done. You're no different then the extremists and I feel sorry for women in your life who's opinions have no value to you.

[Lorizael]

You have to define "person" before you can use it an argument.

You can say that smoking causes cancer, and the science would heavily back you up on this assertion. But I can say that the issue is not entirely settled, because some cigarettes may be aardvarks. Now you'll look at me funny and go, "wtf, mate?" But I'll say, "That's my opinion and I'm sticking it to it. Because some cigarettes may be aardvarks, smoking doesn't necessarily cause cancer." And then you'll ask me to tell you what an aardvark is and why it doesn't cause cancer.

[Felch]

Being a person is a legal distinction, not a scientific one. Corporations are persons. Corporations are not human, and do not enjoy human rights. Being a person isn't what concerns me, only the human rights issue.

As far as accusing us of being as bad as extremist Islamists, I think that's the sort of hyperbole that clouds the issue. I'm not interested in owning women like chattel, I'm interested in protecting human life. I don't think that outlawing abortion will work, because desperate people will always do desperate things. Since abortion specialists are perverse corruptions of medical doctors, the only thing that keeps them from cutting corners and killing desperate women is strict regulation. Keeping everything legal forces these people to act under society's scrutiny.

Ideally, people will realize that a human is a human no matter how small. Until then, we've got to work to gently persuade those around us.