Originally posted by twhitehead
for those who believe that a foetus is equivalent to a baby(post birth), should a mother who accidentally falls and causes an abortion be treated in exactly the same way as a mother who accidentally kills a child?

Do you believe a five year old boy is equivalent to a 28 year old man?
Do you believe a three year old girl is equivalent to an 18 year old woman?
What type of asinine question of equivalence are you proposing?
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
If you spill your seed on the ground, you committed many thousands of deliberate abortions (see Onanism). If you fail to spill your seed, it dies in your body (more abortions). I'll let you work out the rest.

Your seed comes equip with a woman's egg surrounding them? You are unique in nature.
Kelly

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
And, while we're at it, should a pregnant woman who drinks liquor be treated the same as a mother who gives liquor to her 1-year old?

Interesting question, what do you think is the right thing?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Interesting question, what do you think is the right thing?
Kelly

Well, to start, I am still somewhat undecided on the issue of abortion. In an ideal society, they would be few and far between. We've got better forms of birth control than abortion.

However, not only do people behave less than ideally on occasion, but no form of birth control is foolproof. In general, I believe abortion should be a last-resort option for a woman who does not want the child. Also, if the evidence about the fetus feeling pain and having consciousness in the 3rd trimester is correct, then I would not support legal abortions in that trimester.

I do not think it is right for a pregnant woman to drink, especially if she plans to keep the baby. However, I do not think it should be outlawed (there is no legal leg to stand on if abortion is allowed for that same period). We do not outlaw all wrong acts (for example, nothing really stops parents from overfeeding their kids to the point of obesity), but sometimes rely on social pressure to discourage those actions.

I support laws banning underage drinking.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Well, to start, I am still somewhat undecided on the issue of abortion. In an ideal society, they would be few and far between. We've got better forms of birth control than abortion.

However, not only do people behave less than ideally on occasion, but no form of birth control is foolproof. In general, I believe abortion should be a last-resort opt ...[text shortened]... ly on social pressure to discourage those actions.

I support laws banning underage drinking.

I'll pick up on your brief mention of legality with abortions to make a point. Looking at situations in our communities where things are illegal, we can see thriving black markets in these areas. Making abortion illegal wouldn't stop abortion, it merely makes it harder for women to get in your 'backyard' clinics and increases the health risk to the women attempting to get them.
Surely we can accept that while some of us do not like the notion of abortions, they will occur whether we sanction them or not - so it would be better to keep them legal where they can be monitored and regulated would it not?

Originally posted by amannion
I'll pick up on your brief mention of legality with abortions to make a point. Looking at situations in our communities where things are illegal, we can see thriving black markets in these areas. Making abortion illegal wouldn't stop abortion, it merely makes it harder for women to get in your 'backyard' clinics and increases the health risk to the women at ...[text shortened]... t would be better to keep them legal where they can be monitored and regulated would it not?

I actually support legal abortion in the first two trimesters. (Edit: this based on science about pain, consciousness, etc.)

However, I believe your argument is one of the weaker arguments in favor of abortion. No law completely stops the act it targets. There are still murders despite the laws against murder. There are still robberies despite the laws against stealing. Obviously, the government's regulation and endorsement of these things wouldn't help matters - the state should not help people commit highly immoral acts.

It all boils down to the rights and personhood of the fetus/child. If we determine that a fetus has rights as a human person at any time during the pregnancy, we become morally obliged to protect those rights. At this point, women should no more expect the state to help them abort than a thief should expect the state to help them break into your house.

However, if it is determined that the fetus has not acquired personhood until month x of pregnancy, society has a far better reason for legalizing abortion than the one you gave. Since there is no overriding moral interest, the state must not interfere with a woman's right to do with her own body as she will.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I actually support legal abortion in the first two trimesters. (Edit: this based on science about pain, consciousness, etc.)

However, I believe your argument is one of the weaker arguments in favor of abortion. No law completely stops the act it targets. There are still murders despite the laws against murder. There are still robberies despite the ...[text shortened]... erest, the state must not interfere with a woman's right to do with her own body as she will.

Very good point. I totally agree.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I actually support legal abortion in the first two trimesters. (Edit: this based on science about pain, consciousness, etc.)

However, I believe your argument is one of the weaker arguments in favor of abortion. No law completely stops the act it targets. There are still murders despite the laws against murder. There are still robberies despite the ...[text shortened]... erest, the state must not interfere with a woman's right to do with her own body as she will.

The question again is five years after an abortion, if the abortion hadn't happened, would there be a five year old running around the house? If yes, then what you have done is ended that life at an earlier stage of development, if you could stomach and indorse it in the first two trimesters, any other stage is just a matter of taste and acceptability too.

To apply the word “personhood” is ridicules since that is strictly subjective, make it what you will, however you define “personhood” will force either value to or rejection of that life to be aborted.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The question again is five years after an abortion, if the abortion hadn't happened, would there be a five year old running around the house? If yes, then what you have done is ended that life at an earlier stage of development, if you could stomach and indorse it in the first two trimesters, any other stage is just a matter of taste and acceptability too. ...[text shortened]... define “personhood” will force either value to or rejection of that life to be aborted.
Kelly

If the parents hadn't sex 5 years and 9 months ago, would there be a 5-year old child running around the house? Not unless they used artificial insemination! You are uncomfortable with the power that we have to decide if and when we will have children, but that power is a reality, and your discomfort is your problem. (Indeed, I remember this from a previous debate with you looooong ago.)

It is your disputing of the word "personhood" that is ridiculous. If you wish to strike that word down, you will not be able to cogently explain why we don't grant the same rights to animals and plants and fungus and bacteria as we do to human beings.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I think it makes a difference whether the aliens voluntarily chose to parasitize humans or whether they were involuntarily made to become parasites. Only in the latter case would the situation be analogous to a woman getting involuntarily pregnant (and even then there are some remaining disanalogies), which is where I suspect you are going with this.
...[text shortened]... might turn into a very nice alien that I wanted to bring up and show off at dinner parties.

Thanks for the answer. I notice most of the others didn't touch it. My sole goal was to dissociate the "human" aspect, but retain the fact that the organism is alive and sentient. That is where a major difference between an alien and a foetus is - the foetus if not sentient until late in the developmental process.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your seed comes equip with a woman's egg surrounding them? You are unique in nature.
Kelly

No, but the seed plus egg cannot breathe until it's it's grown several months, and life is breath. At least if you look to the Bible for your answers, life is breath.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
If the parents hadn't sex 5 years and 9 months ago, would there be a 5-year old child running around the house? Not unless they used artificial insemination! You are uncomfortable with the power that we have to decide if and when we will have children, but that power is a reality, and your discomfort is your problem. (Indeed, I remember this from a pr ...[text shortened]... rant the same rights to animals and plants and fungus and bacteria as we do to human beings.

Well apparently since the debate is that you do not know when to call it human, it seems that a vague descriptive term of personhood is just a cop out! A feel good word to dehumanize what you refuse to acknowledge, a human in the early stages of its life. I don't know what you desire to call our early stages of life, bacteria, fungus, some wart, or just something else, any else, just not human?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I have a hypothetical question for the anti-abortionists here.

Suppose a cognescent alien life form came to earth, which could only survive by parasitising humans. Would you advocate the removal of these life forms, even though it would cause their death, or would you suggest that people should "just live with it"?

You are trying to divorce inherent humanity from an unborn child. From fertilization: the zygote -- right through the embryo and fetus stage, this entity needs only oxygen and nutrition to mature into a born human baby and then into an adult human. Embryological science undisputably confirms the start of a new human life from fertilization. I'm sorry -- I cannot condone the taking of human life to solve social problems. Can you?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thanks for the answer. I notice most of the others didn't touch it. My sole goal was to dissociate the "human" aspect, but retain the fact that the organism is alive and sentient. That is where a major difference between an alien and a foetus is - the foetus if not sentient until late in the developmental process.

I notice most of the others didn't touch it. My sole goal was to dissociate the "human" aspect, but retain the fact that the organism is alive and sentient. That is where a major difference between an alien and a foetus is - the foetus if not sentient until late in the developmental process.

You are not sentient while you sleep or otherwise temporarily unconscious: may I therefore kill you? We should be talking about the latent capacity for sentience -- which I hold the unborn human qualifies for.

Originally posted by Halitose
You are not sentient while you sleep or otherwise temporarily unconscious: may I therefore kill you?

I take it you have never had a lucid dream, in which one is indeed conscious.