NationStates

Grenartia wrote:

Wiztopia wrote:
Logic and common sense says otherwise.

Yeah, you certainly do make a good argument. All human beings who are underdeveloped have no right to live, so I'm going to go kill a couple of new borns right now!! Thanks, Wiztopia, my life has meaning now, thanks to you!!!!

1) Fetuses are not born so your comparison is shit.

2) Killing a baby would be murder since it is born.

Wiztopia wrote:

Galloism wrote:That may be. However, as it stands, a fetus can be murdered.

Logic and common sense says otherwise.

The law is pretty much the ultimate authority on what is and isn't a crime. If you wanted to know what the difference is between sexual assault and rape, for instance, looking at what the law defines each as would be a stupendous place to start.

A fetus, currently, can be murdered. This is a fact not up for debate. No matter how much your logic (which you never explained or justified, other than "it's not born, hurr durr") changes that fact.

The only way that fact can change is if you get the law changed.

Grenartia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Rights are something a person has... A foetus is not a person.

A fetus can legally be considered a victim of a crime in over 30 states. So if it can be a victim of murder, then why do we still not consider it a person? Because a long ass fucking time ago (the better part of a century, I believe) some people wanted to have the ability to murder their own child/children, get off scott-free, and still be able to sleep at night.

Because it does not meet any of the qualifications of personhood.

Wiztopia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Yeah, you certainly do make a good argument. All human beings who are underdeveloped have no right to live, so I'm going to go kill a couple of new borns right now!! Thanks, Wiztopia, my life has meaning now, thanks to you!!!!

1) Fetuses are not born so your comparison is shit.

2) Killing a baby would be murder since it is born.

So fetuses (feti?) should be killed because they are freeloading parasites? That's pretty much the only major difference between a fetus and an infant.

Grenartia wrote:

Wiztopia wrote:
1) Fetuses are not born so your comparison is shit.

2) Killing a baby would be murder since it is born.

So fetuses (feti?) should be killed because they are freeloading parasites? That's pretty much the only major difference between a fetus and an infant.

Yes.

It's a simple concept, really. Kill fetus good. Kill infants bad.

Dyakovo wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
A fetus can legally be considered a victim of a crime in over 30 states. So if it can be a victim of murder, then why do we still not consider it a person? Because a long ass fucking time ago (the better part of a century, I believe) some people wanted to have the ability to murder their own child/children, get off scott-free, and still be able to sleep at night.

Because it does not meet any of the qualifications of personhood.

Ok then, for the purposes of debate, list those qualifications.

Grenartia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Because it does not meet any of the qualifications of personhood.

Ok then, for the purposes of debate, list those qualifications.

1: Consciousness
2: Reasoning
3: Self-motivated activity
4: The presence of self concepts and self awareness

Who cares if the fetus is a person or not? It is inhabiting the body of another person, and that person's right to bodily autonomy supersedes whatever "rights" moralists want to attach to a clump of cells.

Norstal wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
So fetuses (feti?) should be killed because they are freeloading parasites? That's pretty much the only major difference between a fetus and an infant.

Yes.

It's a simple concept, really. Kill fetus good. Kill infants bad.

So, the deciding factor is whether or not it passed through a vagina?

That is the absolute stupidest criteria I've ever heard.

Galloism wrote:

Wiztopia wrote:
Logic and common sense says otherwise.

The law is pretty much the ultimate authority on what is and isn't a crime. If you wanted to know what the difference is between sexual assault and rape, for instance, looking at what the law defines each as would be a stupendous place to start.

A fetus, currently, can be murdered. This is a fact not up for debate. No matter how much your logic (which you never explained or justified, other than "it's not born, hurr durr") changes that fact.

The only way that fact can change is if you get the law changed.

Its a crime that shouldn't exist. Just because a law exists doesn't make the law right. Another example for a law like this other than the fetal homicide law is laws saying lolicon is child porn.

Dyakovo wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Ok then, for the purposes of debate, list those qualifications.

1: Consciousness
2: Reasoning
3: Self-motivated activity
4: The presence of self concepts and self awareness

Hence my cats are more people than a first trimester fetus.

Bitchkitten wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:1: Consciousness
2: Reasoning
3: Self-motivated activity
4: The presence of self concepts and self awareness

Hence my cats are more people than a first trimester fetus.

Truth.

I also had a border collie when I was a kid that was more of a person than a newborn.

Galloism wrote:

Bitchkitten wrote:Hence my cats are more people than a first trimester fetus.

Truth.

I also had a border collie when I was a kid that was more of a person than a newborn.

I would have to disagree with that. Since its a dog it can't be a person.

Wiztopia wrote:

Galloism wrote:Truth.

I also had a border collie when I was a kid that was more of a person than a newborn.

I would have to disagree with that. Since its a dog it can't be a person.

I was responding to Dyakovo's criteria, nothing more.

Let's face it, determining personhood at birth is intellectually lazy. Let's compare all the criteria I can think of between a 7 month old fetus, a newborn, and a border collie.

Brain activity, yes to all three.
Sapient, no to all three.
Self-aware, no to the fetus and the newborn, possibly yes or no to the border collie (more study required)
Human: yes to the newborn and the fetus, no to the border collie.
Able to survive apart from it's mother: yes to all three
Self-sufficient: no to all three, although the border collie possibly could
Potential to become a self-sufficient contributing member of society: yes to newborn and fetus, no to the border collie
Breathing: yes to the newborn and the border collie, no to the fetus

If you've got more criteria, I'm all ears.

Galloism wrote:

Wiztopia wrote:
I would have to disagree with that. Since its a dog it can't be a person.

I was responding to Dyakovo's criteria, nothing more.

Let's face it, determining personhood at birth is intellectually lazy. Let's compare all the criteria I can think of between a 7 month old fetus, a newborn, and a border collie.

Brain activity, yes to all three.
Sapient, no to all three.
Self-aware, no to the fetus and the newborn, possibly yes or no to the border collie (more study required)
Human: yes to the newborn and the fetus, no to the border collie.
Able to survive apart from it's mother: yes to all three
Self-sufficient: no to all three, although the border collie possibly could
Potential to become a self-sufficient contributing member of society: yes to newborn and fetus, no to the border collie
Breathing: yes to the newborn and the border collie, no to the fetus

If you've got more criteria, I'm all ears.

A fetus cannot survive apart from its mother. Potential doesn't matter. That's like the arguments where people call the fetus a baby.

Wiztopia wrote:

Galloism wrote:I was responding to Dyakovo's criteria, nothing more.

Let's face it, determining personhood at birth is intellectually lazy. Let's compare all the criteria I can think of between a 7 month old fetus, a newborn, and a border collie.

Brain activity, yes to all three.
Sapient, no to all three.
Self-aware, no to the fetus and the newborn, possibly yes or no to the border collie (more study required)
Human: yes to the newborn and the fetus, no to the border collie.
Able to survive apart from it's mother: yes to all three
Self-sufficient: no to all three, although the border collie possibly could
Potential to become a self-sufficient contributing member of society: yes to newborn and fetus, no to the border collie
Breathing: yes to the newborn and the border collie, no to the fetus

If you've got more criteria, I'm all ears.

A fetus cannot survive apart from its mother. Potential doesn't matter. That's like the arguments where people call the fetus a baby.

A third trimester fetus can, in fact, survive apart from it's mother. It simply must be, shall we say, extracted to do so.

Seltwar wrote:Unrestricted pro-choice.
Is an egg a chicken? No, its a egg.
Is a grain of sand a beach? No, it's just a grain.
Is a cell a tissue? No, its a cell not a tissue.
Is a foundation a building? No, its a foundation.
IE A fetus is not a person, its a fetus. IT has no heartbeat does not react to the outside environment it does not defend itself. Rocks share similar processes.
A fetus has more in common with a rock than a chicken. Sure they share the same elemental and chemical compounds, but thats it. An aluminum foil shares the same main material as a plane. Does that mean all aluminum foil's are planes? No.
Egg is not a chicken.
Fetus is not a person.

A fetus isn't part of a human being.

Bitchkitten wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:1: Consciousness
2: Reasoning
3: Self-motivated activity
4: The presence of self concepts and self awareness

Hence my cats are more people than a first trimester fetus.

And a dog is more of a person than a newborn?

Rhodmhire wrote:To be honest, the whole "mother's rights > fetus's rights" thing is the keystone of this whole debate. It almost really wouldn't matter if the fetus was a person, I think. If it is, then it's a person who is totally dependent upon the mother until it is born. It cannot survive on its own without her nourishment. It does not provide anything of benefit to her directly (biologically speaking) except that it carries on her genetic material and continues the survival of the species in general. I don't see why its "rights" would overrule the mother's if it was unwanted.

Sure, it's probably going to end up being the pride and joy of her life, no shit about that. But that's emotion, that's family, not science.

Since when is your right to lived determined by your contributions to society?

Nulono wrote:Since when is your right to lived determined by your contributions to society?

Since when does a right to live trump another person's bodily integrity?

I need a kidney. You're a match. By the way, the government is going to make you give me one of yours, or you go to prison.

Sound good?

The Anti-Cosmic Gods wrote:Who cares if the fetus is a person or not? It is inhabiting the body of another person, and that person's right to bodily autonomy supersedes whatever "rights" moralists want to attach to a clump of cells.

That once that 'clump of cells' has a heartbeat, and brain functions, it becomes a person.

Dyakovo wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Ok then, for the purposes of debate, list those qualifications.

1: Consciousness
2: Reasoning
3: Self-motivated activity
4: The presence of self concepts and self awareness

1,2,3: I once read that fetuses will react to an instrument in the womb during an abortion. I can't find the source, though.

4:

Wiki article on consciousness wrote:With the Mirror test, devised by Gordon Gallup in the 1970s, one is interested in whether animals are able to recognize themselves in a mirror. The classic example of the test involves placing a spot of coloring on the skin or fur near the individual's forehead and seeing if they attempt to remove it or at least touch the spot, thus indicating that they recognize that the individual they are seeing in the mirror is themselves. Humans (older than 18 months) and other great apes, bottlenose dolphins, pigeons, elephants[38] and magpies[39] have all been observed to pass this test. The test is usually carried out with an identical 'spot' being placed elsewhere on the head with a non-visible material as a control, to assure the subject is not responding to the touch stimuli of the spot's presence.

Wiki article on the Mirror test wrote:Dogs, cats, and young human babies tend to initially fail the mirror test.[3][4] Humans tend to fail the mirror test until they are about 18 months old, or what psychoanalysts call the "mirror stage".[19]

Therefore, until about a year and a half after one is born, one lacks self-awareness.

Wiki article on self-concept wrote:One study, focusing on the developmental perspective, aimed to discover girls’ and boys’ preferences for socialization. Thirty-three-month-old children were assigned to play in pairs. Some pairs were same-sex, others were mixed. Researchers measured both positive and negative social behaviors during play. Both boys and girls had higher levels of social behavior when playing with the same sex than with the opposite sex. In addition, in the mixed-sex pairs, girls were more likely to passively watch a male partner play than vice versa. Boys were more likely to be unresponsive to what their female partners were saying than vice versa.[21]

So let me put my two cents in on those results. Either one of two things may be true. Either self-identity (as far as gender goes) is a result of sex-related hormones (like testosterone and estrogen), or that infants quickly gain an identity of gender (probably from observing others, like monkey-see, monkey-do), before they can pass the mirror test.

The only way to determine whether or not fetuses have self concepts would be to observe twins of different genders inside the womb.

Galloism wrote:

Nulono wrote:Since when is your right to lived determined by your contributions to society?

Since when does a right to live trump another person's bodily integrity?

I need a kidney. You're a match. By the way, the government is going to make you give me one of yours, or you go to prison.

Sound good?

Except you're conflating positive and negative rights.

Galloism wrote:

Wiztopia wrote:
A fetus cannot survive apart from its mother. Potential doesn't matter. That's like the arguments where people call the fetus a baby.

A third trimester fetus can, in fact, survive apart from it's mother. It simply must be, shall we say, extracted to do so.

You do realize that if its born it isn't a fetus anymore right?

Wiztopia wrote:

Galloism wrote:A third trimester fetus can, in fact, survive apart from it's mother. It simply must be, shall we say, extracted to do so.

You do realize that if its born it isn't a fetus anymore right?

What does that have to do with anything? A third-trimester fetus can survive apart from his or her mother.

Nulono wrote:

Galloism wrote:Since when does a right to live trump another person's bodily integrity?

I need a kidney. You're a match. By the way, the government is going to make you give me one of yours, or you go to prison.

Sound good?

Except you're conflating positive and negative rights.

Actually, I'm not.

If we presume the fetus a right to live, and the woman in question has a right to bodily integrity, part of the integrity is that she can choose to have parasitic-like organisms removed from her.

The fact that the fetus (or earlier stage) then dies is an unfortunate side effect of removal.

Wiztopia wrote:

Galloism wrote:A third trimester fetus can, in fact, survive apart from it's mother. It simply must be, shall we say, extracted to do so.

You do realize that if its born it isn't a fetus anymore right?

You do realize that a 3rd trimester fetus can be premature. In fact, IIRC from all the wiki visits I've been doing on this topic, a really late 2nd trimester fetus (5 months) can survive outside the womb, albeit very unlikely.

Grenartia wrote:

Wiztopia wrote:
You do realize that if its born it isn't a fetus anymore right?

You do realize that a 3rd trimester fetus can be premature. In fact, IIRC from all the wiki visits I've been doing on this topic, a really late 2nd trimester fetus (5 months) can survive outside the womb, albeit very unlikely.

If its born it isn't a fetus anymore.