Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Um, no....not in any way is that remotely the same concept. A squad, element, etc is not a human body.

Meh. I felt like that would be a bad comparison.

Because of "sovereignty", let's get literal! (I'll see how this works...)

So a woman is a queen. She doesn't like some of her subjects, because she doesn't want to deal with them. Does she have a right to kill them?

(It might basically be the same thing as the first comparison, but think about it: just because someone is under their rule does not give them the right to kill the people under them.)

That's not what bodily sovereignty means.You are comparing apples to potatoes.

[MERIZoC]

Not remotely what vegetative state means.

Though the idea of entering a vegetable state is interesting. Is it only carrots, or can we be other things? And what about tomatoes?

I'd rather enter into a Dairy state.

[Neutraligon]

Not remotely what vegetative state means.

Well, what does it mean, then? Usually people say "vegetative state" when a person is comatose and unable to function independently.

A vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, with sufficient sparing of the diencephalon and brain stem to preserve autonomic and motor reflexes and sleep-wake cycles.

[Lost heros]

Though the idea of entering a vegetable state is interesting. Is it only carrots, or can we be other things? And what about tomatoes?

I'd rather enter into a Dairy state.

I personally prefer the complex carbohydrate state.

[WestRedMaple]

Um, no....not in any way is that remotely the same concept. A squad, element, etc is not a human body.

Meh. I felt like that would be a bad comparison.

Because of "sovereignty", let's get literal! (I'll see how this works...)

So a woman is a queen. She doesn't like some of her subjects, because she doesn't want to deal with them. Does she have a right to kill them?

(It might basically be the same thing as the first comparison, but think about it: just because someone is under their rule does not give them the right to kill the people under them.)

Still not a real analogy. Let's make a better one: with the help of some new drugs that prevent rejection, I physically attach myself to you....do you feel you have any right to have me removed?

[New Werpland]

The Abortion issue actually demonstrates a flaw in Liberal philosophy, which is useful for propagating my own ideology.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

So, I have asked multiple people, and nobody has given me a solid answer:

I'll do my best, but your evaluation of 'solid' is obviously subjective.

what defines a person? Does thinking define a person?

Yes

If I do a thoughtless act, like scribble a random drawing on a piece of paper (as I do often), or if I bleat like a sheep in class for no reason, does that make me any less human?

No. Describing those acts as 'thoughtless' is hyperbole. Those are acts arising from a thinking mind as a result of thought, even if the thought is not terribly well organized.

Also it's not judged by acts arising from the thoughts, but by the thoughts themselves. Luckily we have ways to detect brain activity.

Now, here's my thing with "sovereignty". Let's say you make the same idea apply for something else:
You are a sergeant in the army. Let's say you have a new recruit join your unit. You don't like him. You think he's annoying. Does that give you the right to kill him?

Of course not. The recruit is not a part of your body. This analogy doesn't really have anything to do with abortion.

(I'm not quite sure if that was the best analogy, but it's basically the same concept.)

No it's not.

[Neutraligon]

The Abortion issue actually demonstrates a flaw in Liberal philosophy, which is useful for propagating my own ideology.

Do explain.

[MERIZoC]

The Abortion issue actually demonstrates a flaw in Liberal philosophy, which is useful for propagating my own ideology.

…What?

[Luminesa]

Hello!

First of all, I LOVE TOTORO!!! I saw your icon a while back, and I thought that was so cute! XD

Second, to start the conversation, I am 100% pro-life and proud of it.

So, I have asked multiple people, and nobody has given me a solid answer: what defines a person? Does thinking define a person? If I do a thoughtless act, like scribble a random drawing on a piece of paper (as I do often), or if I bleat like a sheep in class for no reason, does that make me any less human?

Now, here's my thing with "sovereignty". Let's say you make the same idea apply for something else:
You are a sergeant in the army. Let's say you have a new recruit join your unit. You don't like him. You think he's annoying. Does that give you the right to kill him?

(I'm not quite sure if that was the best analogy, but it's basically the same concept.)

Personhood is the legal standard for someone's individuality.
Generally, when pro-choice advocates mention thinking or consciousness, we do so in general to a response about "the baby doesn't get the choice" or "the baby feels pain". This has nothing to do with personhood.

Your analogy is incredibly poor. And really I don't know why you even need one. When we talk about bodily sovereignty, we are talking about a person's right to control over her body. A grown person does not have the right to use your body without your informed consent, neither should a fetus.

Meh. It's kinda hard to make an analogy here. Pardon me, my brain is also a little foggy because I've come down with the cold, recently...

I mean, controlling my body...I can control what goes in it (I can eat a cheeseburger or a hot dog), and I can control what comes out (I can keep myself from laughing during inappropriate times). But the baby is another being in the body. It's not part of the woman, like her tissue or her DNA.

What legal document gives the definition for personhood? I mean, I keep hearing 'personhood' is the legal standard, and when I think legal I think documents in really dense, really dry legal language.

[Rostogovia]

Fetuses are not sentient, do not feel pain, and do not in anyway posses personhood. How can you murder someone that's not a person?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Meh. I felt like that would be a bad comparison.

Because of "sovereignty", let's get literal! (I'll see how this works...)

So a woman is a queen. She doesn't like some of her subjects, because she doesn't want to deal with them. Does she have a right to kill them?

(It might basically be the same thing as the first comparison, but think about it: just because someone is under their rule does not give them the right to kill the people under them.)

Still not a real analogy. Let's make a better one: with the help of some new drugs that prevent rejection, I physically attach myself to you....do you feel you have any right to have me removed?

That's a bit farfetched, but fuck it, good enough.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Meh. It's kinda hard to make an analogy here. Pardon me, my brain is also a little foggy because I've come down with the cold, recently...

I mean, controlling my body...I can control what goes in it (I can eat a cheeseburger or a hot dog), and I can control what comes out (I can keep myself from laughing during inappropriate times). But the baby is another being in the body. It's not part of the woman, like her tissue or her DNA.

What legal document gives the definition for personhood? I mean, I keep hearing 'personhood' is the legal standard, and when I think legal I think documents in really dense, really dry legal language.

This is the legal definition of a person:

An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

Obviously that's not what we're referring to in this debate. We're more talking about the philosophical definition of what a person is, which is a being capable of abstract thought, of experience and expression, and usually of language.

[Luminesa]

Meh. I felt like that would be a bad comparison.

Because of "sovereignty", let's get literal! (I'll see how this works...)

So a woman is a queen. She doesn't like some of her subjects, because she doesn't want to deal with them. Does she have a right to kill them?

(It might basically be the same thing as the first comparison, but think about it: just because someone is under their rule does not give them the right to kill the people under them.)

Still not a real analogy. Let's make a better one: with the help of some new drugs that prevent rejection, I physically attach myself to you....do you feel you have any right to have me removed?

I can remove you, but I'm not going to kill you. I'll just take a crowbar and some oil and pry you off.

If we were comparing this to abortion, then abortion in this case would be like taking out a pistol and shooting you in the head for attaching yourself to me. Which would be inhumane and unreasonable, when, again, I can just pry you off and go along my merry way. Meanwhile, you are still living and capable of going on with your life.

[MERIZoC]

Personhood is the legal standard for someone's individuality.
Generally, when pro-choice advocates mention thinking or consciousness, we do so in general to a response about "the baby doesn't get the choice" or "the baby feels pain". This has nothing to do with personhood.

Your analogy is incredibly poor. And really I don't know why you even need one. When we talk about bodily sovereignty, we are talking about a person's right to control over her body. A grown person does not have the right to use your body without your informed consent, neither should a fetus.

Meh. It's kinda hard to make an analogy here. Pardon me, my brain is also a little foggy because I've come down with the cold, recently...

I mean, controlling my body...I can control what goes in it (I can eat a cheeseburger or a hot dog), and I can control what comes out (I can keep myself from laughing during inappropriate times). But the baby is another being in the body. It's not part of the woman, like her tissue or her DNA.

What legal document gives the definition for personhood? I mean, I keep hearing 'personhood' is the legal standard, and when I think legal I think documents in really dense, really dry legal language.

I don't think you want to look for a legal definition. Going by legal precedent isn't the right way to approach issues like these. You want a philosophical definition.

[Lost heros]

Personhood is the legal standard for someone's individuality.
Generally, when pro-choice advocates mention thinking or consciousness, we do so in general to a response about "the baby doesn't get the choice" or "the baby feels pain". This has nothing to do with personhood.

Your analogy is incredibly poor. And really I don't know why you even need one. When we talk about bodily sovereignty, we are talking about a person's right to control over her body. A grown person does not have the right to use your body without your informed consent, neither should a fetus.

Meh. It's kinda hard to make an analogy here. Pardon me, my brain is also a little foggy because I've come down with the cold, recently...

I mean, controlling my body...I can control what goes in it (I can eat a cheeseburger or a hot dog), and I can control what comes out (I can keep myself from laughing during inappropriate times). But the baby is another being in the body. It's not part of the woman, like her tissue or her DNA.

What legal document gives the definition for personhood? I mean, I keep hearing 'personhood' is the legal standard, and when I think legal I think documents in really dense, really dry legal language.

The fetus is using your body without informed consent. It has no right to do such.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... personhood

[MERIZoC]

Still not a real analogy. Let's make a better one: with the help of some new drugs that prevent rejection, I physically attach myself to you....do you feel you have any right to have me removed?

I can remove you, but I'm not going to kill you. I'll just take a crowbar and some oil and pry you off.

If we were comparing this to abortion, then abortion in this case would be like taking out a pistol and shooting you in the head for attaching yourself to me. Which would be inhumane and unreasonable, when, again, I can just pry you off and go along my merry way. Meanwhile, you are still living and capable of going on with your life.

Let's imagine they can't be removed without killing them.

[Edgy Opinions]

The Abortion issue actually demonstrates a flaw in Liberal philosophy, which is useful for propagating my own ideology.

Mas o que

[Luminesa]

Meh. It's kinda hard to make an analogy here. Pardon me, my brain is also a little foggy because I've come down with the cold, recently...

I mean, controlling my body...I can control what goes in it (I can eat a cheeseburger or a hot dog), and I can control what comes out (I can keep myself from laughing during inappropriate times). But the baby is another being in the body. It's not part of the woman, like her tissue or her DNA.

What legal document gives the definition for personhood? I mean, I keep hearing 'personhood' is the legal standard, and when I think legal I think documents in really dense, really dry legal language.

This is the legal definition of a person:

An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

Obviously that's not what we're referring to in this debate. We're more talking about the philosophical definition of what a person is, which is a being capable of abstract thought, of experience and expression, and usually of language.

So if I can't talk, I have little-to-no experience at...something, and I have trouble expressing myself, does that make me not a person?

[Arcturus Novus]

I would share my opinions, but being an individual who is incapable of carrying and birthing a child, I don't think my opinion is really valid. It is a pregnant person's choice whether or not they wish to develop a fetus inside of their body for nine months; let them decide.

[Luminesa]

I can remove you, but I'm not going to kill you. I'll just take a crowbar and some oil and pry you off.

If we were comparing this to abortion, then abortion in this case would be like taking out a pistol and shooting you in the head for attaching yourself to me. Which would be inhumane and unreasonable, when, again, I can just pry you off and go along my merry way. Meanwhile, you are still living and capable of going on with your life.

Let's imagine they can't be removed without killing them.

So you're saying that if I do pry you off you would chase me to the ends of the earth until you were able to physically attach yourself to me again? :/

[Mavorpen]

If we were comparing this to abortion, then abortion in this case would be like taking out a pistol and shooting you in the head for attaching yourself to me. Which would be inhumane and unreasonable, when, again, I can just pry you off and go along my merry way. Meanwhile, you are still living and capable of going on with your life.

No it wouldn't. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If you could, for example, remove a fetus from the mother before viability and place it into an incubator of some kind without it dying, that would still be an abortion. The analogy to an abortion applies if you just pry them off of you.

[Lost heros]

Still not a real analogy. Let's make a better one: with the help of some new drugs that prevent rejection, I physically attach myself to you....do you feel you have any right to have me removed?

I can remove you, but I'm not going to kill you. I'll just take a crowbar and some oil and pry you off.

If we were comparing this to abortion, then abortion in this case would be like taking out a pistol and shooting you in the head for attaching yourself to me. Which would be inhumane and unreasonable, when, again, I can just pry you off and go along my merry way. Meanwhile, you are still living and capable of going on with your life.

What if he becomes dependent on your stomach to breakdown nutrients for him. By removing him, you will force him to starve to death.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Personhood is the legal standard for someone's individuality.
Generally, when pro-choice advocates mention thinking or consciousness, we do so in general to a response about "the baby doesn't get the choice" or "the baby feels pain". This has nothing to do with personhood.

Your analogy is incredibly poor. And really I don't know why you even need one. When we talk about bodily sovereignty, we are talking about a person's right to control over her body. A grown person does not have the right to use your body without your informed consent, neither should a fetus.

Meh. It's kinda hard to make an analogy here. Pardon me, my brain is also a little foggy because I've come down with the cold, recently...

I mean, controlling my body...I can control what goes in it (I can eat a cheeseburger or a hot dog), and I can control what comes out (I can keep myself from laughing during inappropriate times). But the baby is another being in the body. It's not part of the woman, like her tissue or her DNA.

What legal document gives the definition for personhood? I mean, I keep hearing 'personhood' is the legal standard, and when I think legal I think documents in really dense, really dry legal language.

You can control what happens to your body too.

As a guy, a proper analogy would be circumcision: I am not circumcised (and for those of you who might go "eww weirdo", bite me) let's say that somehow, in some way, I end up with a doctor who suggests circumcision because they think it's a normal thing for everyone to have a circumcision. Should I have to go through it because the doctor says so or because my wife pressures me because "uncut dicks are icky", or do I have a choice of whether or not I want to circumcise?

[Rostogovia]

Lets examine this in terms of woe vs benefit. The fetus doesn't experience any suffering whether emotional or physical as it is not sentient, and the mother in question is liberated from the terrifying prospect of rearing a child. The mother reaps benefit, and the fetus experiences no detriment as it was never sentient in the first place.