|
Post by Tiger on Aug 3, 2009 16:44:41 GMT -5
And I find it quite sickening that they are so happy when someone dies in the process of having an abortion. As does any sane person. However, that opinion is logical if you believe the fetus to have the same rights as a human being. Even if they're smart enough to know that, the fact remains that it would cut down on it significantly.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Aug 3, 2009 17:11:34 GMT -5
While yes making abortion illegal will probably drop the number of abortions performed, it will also probably cause a skyrocket in babies found abandoned in garbage bins, child abuse and neglect, and babies being put up for adoption and then potentially left to languish in the foster-care system. Because that's what happens when people who don't want to have children are forced to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 3, 2009 17:14:52 GMT -5
Ah, my unfavourite pro-life fallacy. This basic biological function proves that fetuses need protecting from the evil hordes. It's always something evocative intended to sway people who aren't so versed in biology, like a beating heart, a pain response or the existence of anatomical structures that resemble those of an adult human. You'll never see a pro-lifer making an argument based on the diameter of the fetus's spleen, which would be just as relevant. I just want to add, the fetus can't even feel pain until the third trimester ( peer review MSNBC). The vast majority of abortions are performed before this. Also, me and my mates were discussing this exact topic yesterday. We just can't see a fetus being sentient. Human and alive, sure, but not sentient. To be sentient, doesn't that require sensory input of the world? A fetus doesn't have this, a fetus can't have this. We also agreed that there is no talk about the risks of carrying a fetus to term and there are actual health risks. There's a reason that child birth used to be the most common cause of death for women.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Aug 3, 2009 17:44:19 GMT -5
Also, me and my mates were discussing this exact topic yesterday. We just can't see a fetus being sentient. Human and alive, sure, but not sentient. To be sentient, doesn't that require sensory input of the world? A fetus doesn't have this, a fetus can't have this. We also agreed that there is no talk about the risks of carrying a fetus to term and there are actual health risks. There's a reason that child birth used to be the most common cause of death for women. Sentient refers to the ability to "sense". Pain and tactile sensation count, so fetuses can do that after a point. Their "world" is the womb, so to speak. So, they are sentient. Like a euglena, I think. Though I just had my notions of what it means to sense crushed by this realization. Anyway, most arguments against abortion are because "it's wrong to kill people" and "fetuses are people". The second I have issues with, because most formulations make this kind of alarming, in a crazy nonsapient zombie sort of way.I have many more arguments, but we've all seen them from each other, so whatever. Just pretend I made a very compelling, intelligent argument.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 3, 2009 19:16:59 GMT -5
Okay, barely sentient. You tricky wordmancer you.
Also, yay HeLa cells and compelling, intelligent argument.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Aug 3, 2009 19:34:07 GMT -5
What's the significance/relevance of the HeLa cells?
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Aug 3, 2009 19:56:06 GMT -5
Also, me and my mates were discussing this exact topic yesterday. We just can't see a fetus being sentient. Human and alive, sure, but not sentient. To be sentient, doesn't that require sensory input of the world? A fetus doesn't have this, a fetus can't have this. The problem is, that definition cuts very close to "as long as she's still in labor, it's okay to kill it." I, for one, am not to sure I like that idea. Marc
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Aug 3, 2009 20:35:48 GMT -5
Okay, barely sentient. You tricky wordmancer you. Also, yay HeLa cells and compelling, intelligent argument. Bow before me, for I am the mighty Wordmancer of the West! Necromancers think they're soooo cool, with their gothiness, but screw them. Words are where it's at, yo. Anyway, Tiger, HeLa cells are... well, I linked to them in my post if you want a fuller description, but basically, this one time, a woman had cancer. She died in 1951. We are still using her cells in research today. The cancer mutated a lot (apparently the chromosome number got screwy), but they're human cells. They're useful in arguments because a lot of people are trying to back up and place their biases on clear backing, like "fetuses are persons because they have human DNA". While it's cute to point out that a placenta deserves full rights under this definition, I prefer to point out that they've given personhood to a throbbing nightmare. At least, most people would consider it grotesque, so it's a good example. Then everyone refines it to say "normal" human cells and we're stuck in a semantic quagmire with no relevance to anything, and we keep arguing anyway, and entropy ends the universe, and so on. But at least I made an awesome point before heat death put an end to existence.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Aug 3, 2009 22:33:46 GMT -5
I did read the Wikipedia article, but was a little confused as to what you were getting at. Thanks for the explanation.
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Aug 4, 2009 0:51:00 GMT -5
- my problem is if my body ceases to be my body and becomes our body, when it can 'save a life' then why aren't kidney and bone marrow donations mandatory. Why do you have to sign a donor card at all - why can't they just take usable organs after your dead -after all 'life' is more important than your rights to your own flesh and blood.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Aug 4, 2009 5:53:17 GMT -5
I always wanted to have a snappy answer bumper sticker that says "Roach spray stops a beating heart, too." But my BFF who is an exterminator informed me that roaches don't exactly have a heart, but have 4 heart-like organs and an open circulatory system, and the quasi-hearts just sort of help slosh their goo around occasionally if they're not moving a lot. DAMN YOU ROACH ANATOMY! I could go with "mousetraps stop a beating heart, too", but I don't want to look like I'm going for the PETA message. People do have problems with killing mice, but far fewer with killing roaches.
The actual point still stands - showing signs of physiological life does not mean that something is a being, and that killing it is morally equivalent to murder - but the lack of snapiness makes me abandon it.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Aug 4, 2009 15:38:07 GMT -5
As does any sane person. However, that opinion is logical if you believe the fetus to have the same rights as a human being. And also believe that death is an appropriate punishment.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Aug 4, 2009 20:50:30 GMT -5
Kristine, is that all directed at me? I'm sorry, I can't quite understand what you're asking to whom... I always wanted to have a snappy answer bumper sticker that says "Roach spray stops a beating heart, too." But my BFF who is an exterminator informed me that roaches don't exactly have a heart, but have 4 heart-like organs and an open circulatory system, and the quasi-hearts just sort of help slosh their goo around occasionally if they're not moving a lot. DAMN YOU ROACH ANATOMY! I could go with "mousetraps stop a beating heart, too", but I don't want to look like I'm going for the PETA message. People do have problems with killing mice, but far fewer with killing roaches. The actual point still stands - showing signs of physiological life does not mean that something is a being, and that killing it is morally equivalent to murder - but the lack of snapiness makes me abandon it. Well, fishing stops a beating heart. A two chambered one, but... The real problem is that the heart is drenched in symbolism. I once saw a video of a rabbit heart split into three sections, which stayed beating in unison. Clearly, it was not an entity worth saving at that point...
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Aug 4, 2009 20:54:11 GMT -5
Would the standard layman know enough about cockroach anatomy to be able to debunk such a bumper sticker?
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Aug 4, 2009 20:56:12 GMT -5
As does any sane person. However, that opinion is logical if you believe the fetus to have the same rights as a human being. And also believe that death is an appropriate punishment. Yeah, I've been meaning to ask about that. How did that happen? "All wife is pweshous! Except those who are guests of the state." By the same token, a lot of pro-choice people are anti death penalty. The other thing I've been meaning to ask is the misunderstanding that because a woman has the option of abortion open to her, it is one of many options. Because she can have an abortion does not mean she has to have an abortion. I've been meaning to ask how that got started.
|
|