Abortion

[Strong in Him]

That isn't evidence, many people believe all sorts of crazy things to be true, but cannot substantiate their beliefs with any evidence.

Interesting; but off topic for this thread.

If you start a thread on the reliability of the Bible, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

That doesn’t mean it’s a person

Of course it's a person
what else could it be.

It's not the beginning of
a rock
or a tree
or a goat.

Why do many not understand
the beginning of life?

M-Bob

 

[Tinker Grey]

what else could it be.

A human corpse is not a person, yet it is human. A brain dead body on life-support is not a person; yet it is human. This is why we may elect to pull the plug.

A blastocyst may be human, but it's not a person. One may opt to pull the plug.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

This is why we may elect to pull the plug.

A blastocyst may be human, but it's not a person. One may opt to pull the plug.

On a healthy baby?
Soulds to be One Big Sin.

M-Bob

 

[Tinker Grey]

On a healthy baby?
Soulds to be One Big Sin.

M-Bob

A blastocyst is neither a person nor a baby.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

A blastocyst is neither a person nor a baby.

Did you put that by the Bible first?
M

 

[stevevw]

If God is good and omnipotent and omniscient, whence evil?

I am not sure but I guess the same question can be asked about where does good come from or love and hate come from. Maybe they are just things that are out there as laws are out there. I don't think we can apply our logic to this as there maybe some reason we don't comprehend. It may not be a case of looking at the origins of good and evil in isolation but as part of something bigger about existence. If there are intelligent beings who have free will and can love then maybe there has to be hate and evil for that to mean something. Maybe there is a greater cause and effect in allowing humans to exist than not and so having evil is part of allowing that to happen. Maybe evil is the price to pay for love and existence and in the end it is better to exist. Who knows.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Did you put that by the Bible first?
M

Sure, and the word blastocyst doesn't occur there.

 

[jayem]

Of course it's a person
what else could it be.

It's not the beginning of
a rock
or a tree
or a goat.

Why do many not understand
the beginning of life?

M-Bob

A zygote is a potential person. But for now, it's a zygote. In the same sense that this:




is a potential butterfly. But as of now, it's caterpillar. Just like this:




is a potential oak tree. But right now, it's acorn. Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

And an embryo is not a person in the legal sense. Nowhere does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the unborn are persons entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. If that's an error, then the proper remedy is a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

A blastocyst is neither a person

Legally, or morally? Two different things. If all you have is a legal point, it doesn't hold much weight in a morality discussion.

nor a baby.

According to who?

From a medical dictionary:
"Baby" includes "an unborn child". Ok, what's a "child"? It's "the human young", which applies, and "an unborn infant". Ok, what's an "infant"? It's "a child less than 1 year old", which again applies.
Source: Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary
Kinda sounds like nothing really excludes a human blastocyst from being a "baby".

And an embryo is not a person in the legal sense. Nowhere does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the unborn are persons entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. If that's an error, then the proper remedy is a Constitutional amendment.

This is the "Ethics & Morality" section, not the "Legal" section. The Nazis made laws to make things they did "legal". Did that, therefore, make them morally right?

 

[Strong in Him]

A human corpse is not a person, yet it is human. A brain dead body on life-support is not a person; yet it is human. This is why we may elect to pull the plug.

They are people with no life in them; life has been pronounced extinct.

A foetus has life; they are not yet a fully developed human being, but they are alive.
And from about the 12th week - i.e before some women realise they are pregnant - they are pretty much fully developed, though still very small.

 

[Tinker Grey]

They are people with no life in them; life has been pronounced extinct.

A foetus has life; they are not yet a fully developed human being, but they are alive.
And from about the 12th week - i.e before some women realise they are pregnant - they are pretty much fully developed, though still very small.

What makes a person a person? Merely life? Then why isn't a skin cell a person? What makes it OK to kill a person on life support? When they aren't a person.

So when aren't they a person? I'm sure you can guess. Can you then see the parallel on the other side of a life cycle?

 

[Schlauch Mann]

So when aren't they a person? I'm sure you can guess.

So, just our guesses make a compelling argument? Ok, well, it's my guess that the unborn are persons. Does that settle it now?

Can you then see the parallel on the other side of a life cycle?

Not really. Please be clear & specific about what morally makes the unborn be non-persons.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, just our guesses make a compelling argument? Ok, well, it's my guess that the unborn are persons. Does that settle it now?


Not really. Please be clear & specific about what morally makes the unborn be non-persons.

When does the brain develop? Can one be a person without a brain? More importantly, when does consciousness develop?

In this article, Tracing Consciousness In The Brains Of Infants, we see that there is some debate as recently as a year and a half ago as to whether infants (Infants!) are conscious. Here's another reference: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/.

The second article says this

Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.

Note that it says begins to be in place. It's not even finished.

Nevertheless, I'd be willing to compromise and outlaw elective abortions after, say, the 24th week. Note that this is the 3rd trimester. (Keyword: elective)

I'd venture that most pro-choice people would say the same.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

(disregard this)

 

[Schlauch Mann]

When does the brain develop? Can one be a person without a brain? More importantly, when does consciousness develop?

In this article, Tracing Consciousness In The Brains Of Infants, we see that there is some debate as recently as a year and a half ago as to whether infants (Infants!) are conscious. Here's another reference: When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?.

The second article says thisNote that it says begins to be in place. It's not even finished.

All well & good, except that I'm a Christian. We accept the existence of spirits, like God. God, by nature, has no physical "brain" and yet has consciousness. The angles don't have physical "brains" and yet have consciousness. Humans have a spirit/soul which has consciousness apart from a physical body.

So, all you have to do now is disprove the existence of those supernatural things. Otherwise, your argument doesn't go beyond "maybe", which is quite substandard to use to end someone's life.

Suppose you're out hunting, and there's some movement behind a bush. Which sounds like the more morally correct thing to do - 1) go ahead & shoot, maybe it's not a person; or 2) maybe it's a person there, better not shoot?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, all you have to do now is disprove the existence of those supernatural things. Otherwise, your argument doesn't go beyond "maybe", which is quite substandard to use to end someone's life.

Not at all. Prove these things exist and I'll consider the implications.

Suppose you're out hunting, and there's some movement behind a bush. Which sounds like the more morally correct thing to do - 1) go ahead & shoot, maybe it's not a person; or 2) maybe it's a person there, better not shoot?

I've given criteria for deciding whether a human is a person. Ergo, these situations are not comparable.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

Not at all. Prove these things exist and I'll consider the implications.

Oh, well I guess that makes it easy. Since you haven't proven consciousness rests on the presence of a physical brain, I don't need to consider the implications of the physical brain not yet being developed in the early stages of life.

I've given criteria for deciding whether a human is a person. Ergo, these situations are not comparable.

You've given your opinion on what the criteria should be, sure. And that criteria still ultimately leaves you at the fact that you can't actually know for sure, which makes it directly comparable to the hunting scenario where you don't yet know if it's a person or not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You've given your opinion on what the criteria should be, sure. And that criteria still ultimately leaves you at the fact that you can't actually know for sure, which makes it directly comparable to the hunting scenario where you don't yet know if it's a person or not.

I have provided the lowest bounds and the largest compromise I could propose: that elective abortions after the 24th week could potentially be banned on the basis that the necessary structures for consciousness have begun to come into place.

As well as anything can be known, we know that a fetus isn't a person before this.

If you've got evidence otherwise, you'd better provide it. If all you have is your religious feeling, then my religious freedom allows me to ignore them.

 

[jayem]

This is the "Ethics & Morality" section, not the "Legal" section. The Nazis made laws to make things they did "legal". Did that, therefore, make them morally right?

.

8 pages before Godwin's Law takes effect. Not too bad.

Legality is different from morality, but it's enormously important in real life. If abortion had not been legalized, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

But in any case, your analogy is specious. As I noted, we have proper and legal ways to change our laws if you believe they are corrupt. Our country is not yet a totalitarian dictatorship. Though I keep in mind The Handmaid's Tale scenario--ideological zealots who would impose authoritarian restrictions on women's reproductive lives.