Abortion

[Omnicracy]

So, I am basicaly of the oppinion that one does not have the right to take human life for an error in judgment. If a woman is raped, or she is in physical danger due pregnancy, abortion is allowed. If she willingly had sex, then she should not be allowed to kill something that is human.

[Omnicracy]

Irelevant. Many thinks at those stages of developement look similar. Does apperance change what something is? If so, then we could solve the world hunger problem by shiping the third world our wax fruit.

Appearance is also irrelevant. A foetus, during the earliest stages of development, has all of the intelligence of a kidney. It's a simple fact. The brain does not develop functions resembling consciousness until well into the pregnancy. (An exact time of which escapes my currently sleep-deprived mind)

Irrelevant. So you would argue that it does not have a right to existence if it is not able to survive on its own? Is it not true that, for the U.S. at least, 18 years 9 months after conception the embryo would have become a fully functioning, voting member of society, assuming all goes well?

Also irrelevant. I could become the next Grand Poobah of the World and control the United Nations with an iron fist in the next 18 years, 9 months, it doesn't mean I will.

Known. Irrelevant. We do not allow the mentaly handycaped to be killed because they are a burden on the system or there family or any host of other unethical reasons.

It is irrelevant that life will develope and will become a free-willed sentient being with uniqu ideas and feelings?

[Avenio]

Known. Irrelevant. We do not allow the mentally handicapped to be killed because they are a burden on the system or there family or any host of other unethical reasons.

It is irrelevant that life will develop and will become a free-willed sentient being with unique ideas and feelings?

But the key is that the handicapped person is sentient, albeit with a disability. They are still people, and are conscious, able to make their own decisions, unlike a foetus.

The problem is that the foetus isn't sentient yet. The person that would have developed, given the proper time, doesn't exist at that point. There is no-one inside of the foetus, it is nothing more than a collection of tissue.

[Omnicracy]

Known. Irrelevant. We do not allow the mentally handicapped to be killed because they are a burden on the system or there family or any host of other unethical reasons.

It is irrelevant that life will develop and will become a free-willed sentient being with unique ideas and feelings?

But the key is that the handicapped person is sentient, albeit with a disability. They are still people, and are conscious, able to make their own decisions, unlike a foetus.

The problem is that the foetus isn't sentient yet. The person that would have developed, given the proper time, doesn't exist at that point. There is no-one inside of the foetus, it is nothing more than a collection of tissue.

But what if they are not sentient? What if there brain were damaged from birth and never developed any for of thinking higher than, say, a dog?

So why can the baby not be killed? It cannot survive on its own. If I were to take a new born and leave it in the middle of the street, would it not die?

[Eradium]

Christians have no right to impose their own beliefs on others, if the woman is fine with it, it's fine by me.

[Avenio]

But what if they are not sentient? What if there brain were damaged from birth and never developed any for of thinking higher than, say, a dog?

Then, seeing as the normal functioning of the human brain would be impaired to the point of a persistive vegetative state, and given the massive difference in complexity between a dog's and a human's brain, the patient would most likey be deemed brain dead and the choice of whether to 'pull the plug' as it were, put up to their family.

So why can the baby not be killed? It cannot survive on its own. If I were to take a new born and leave it in the middle of the street, would it not die?

But at that point the baby is a fully sentient creature, with the capability to learn, grow and become a member of society. A foetus, by contrast, barely has the neurological ability to pump its own heart. The issue here is not the survivability of the child, as even a five-year-old would probably be unable to fend for itself on the street without care, but its sentience.

[Omnicracy]

Christians have no right to impose their own beliefs on others, if the woman is fine with it, it's fine by me.

My beliefs on the matter have nothing to do with Christianity. Remember, this is not a Gay marriage forum.

[Omnicracy]

But what if they are not sentient? What if there brain were damaged from birth and never developed any for of thinking higher than, say, a dog?

Then, seeing as the normal functioning of the human brain would be impaired to the point of a persistive vegetative state, and given the massive difference in complexity between a dog's and a human's brain, the patient would most likey be deemed brain dead and the choice of whether to 'pull the plug' as it were, put up to their family.

So why can the baby not be killed? It cannot survive on its own. If I were to take a new born and leave it in the middle of the street, would it not die?

But at that point the baby is a fully sentient creature, with the capability to learn, grow and become a member of society. A foetus, by contrast, barely has the neurological ability to pump its own heart. The issue here is not the survivability of the child, as even a five-year-old would probably be unable to fend for itself on the street without care, but its sentience.

So then you would view abortion as "pulling the plug"?

No. At that point the baby is very much not awar of its environment. If it were fully sentient, then it would be able to develope the skills to survive on its own fairly quickly. Just because it no longer needs an external nerviouse system to regulate its biological functions, does not mean it is yet a sentient being.

[Avenio]

Christians have no right to impose their own beliefs on others, if the woman is fine with it, it's fine by me.

My beliefs on the matter have nothing to do with Christianity. Remember, this is not a Gay marriage forum.

I believe he made an assumption based upon your pro-life statement, which is a fair guess. His point is that if you don't want an abortion for you and your partner, then that's fine, but leave everyone else to make their own decisions about it rather than have an absolute moral truth doled out by you.

So then you would view abortion as "pulling the plug"?

Indeed I do. At the stages before consciousness begins, the foetus is little more advanced than a cancerous growth, and can be removed with just as much impunity.

No. At that point the baby is very much not awar of its environment. If it were fully sentient, then it would be able to develope the skills to survive on its own fairly quickly. Just because it no longer needs an external nerviouse system to regulate its biological functions, does not mean it is yet a sentient being.

It is still sentient, it has the ability to think and feel emotions, have attachments to persons or things and it can make rational decisions (Am I hungry or not? as an example.)

[Coffin-Breathe]

What is your opinion on abortion?

...should be (and is in civilized countries) legal and left to be a decision of the parents, respectively the mother...

[Omnicracy]

Christians have no right to impose their own beliefs on others, if the woman is fine with it, it's fine by me.

My beliefs on the matter have nothing to do with Christianity. Remember, this is not a Gay marriage forum.

I believe he made an assumption based upon your pro-life statement, which is a fair guess. His point is that if you don't want an abortion for you and your partner, then that's fine, but leave everyone else to make their own decisions about it rather than have an absolute moral truth doled out by you.

So then you would view abortion as "pulling the plug"?

Indeed I do. At the stages before consciousness begins, the foetus is little more advanced than a cancerous growth, and can be removed with just as much impunity.

No. At that point the baby is very much not awar of its environment. If it were fully sentient, then it would be able to develope the skills to survive on its own fairly quickly. Just because it no longer needs an external nerviouse system to regulate its biological functions, does not mean it is yet a sentient being.

It is still sentient, it has the ability to think and feel emotions, have attachments to persons or things and it can make rational decisions (Am I hungry or not? as an example.)

I do give you the right to make your own dessition. You may choose to have sex or you may choose not to have sex. If you choose the former, why should you be able to kill human life if you are unhappy with the known consequences of your actions?

Ah. I know understand your argument. I still comleatly dissagree, but at least I now understand.

But it is not capable of surviving on its own. It needs people to provide for it or it will die. It will be sentient on day, but as you said yourself, in other words than these, how developed it will get does not matter. Granted, it now has rudemetery thought, but so do squirls. All that in mind, I ask; What makes the baby who cannot survive on his own differant from the foetus that cannot survive on its own?

[Eradium]

Christians have no right to impose their own beliefs on others, if the woman is fine with it, it's fine by me.

My beliefs on the matter have nothing to do with Christianity. Remember, this is not a Gay marriage forum.

I believe he made an assumption based upon your pro-life statement, which is a fair guess. His point is that if you don't want an abortion for you and your partner, then that's fine, but leave everyone else to make their own decisions about it rather than have an absolute moral truth doled out by you.

You hit the nail on the head, this was what I was aiming at.

[Omnicracy]

Christians have no right to impose their own beliefs on others, if the woman is fine with it, it's fine by me.

My beliefs on the matter have nothing to do with Christianity. Remember, this is not a Gay marriage forum.

I believe he made an assumption based upon your pro-life statement, which is a fair guess. His point is that if you don't want an abortion for you and your partner, then that's fine, but leave everyone else to make their own decisions about it rather than have an absolute moral truth doled out by you.

You hit the nail on the head, this was what I was aiming at.

So because I believe human life should not be killed based upon a poor dessision, I must be trying to impose religious beliefs upon the world?

[Avenio]

I do give you the right to make your own dessition. You may choose to have sex or you may choose not to have sex. If you choose the former, why should you be able to kill human life if you are unhappy with the known consequences of your actions?

Which is exactly what he was getting at. What makes you have the authority to tell another person what to do with their life? Your version of 'right' and 'wrong' is relative, as my and other's opinions have stated, so why do we have to live by what you say is the 'right' way? Are our opinions not valid?

Ah. I know understand your argument. I still comleatly dissagree, but at least I now understand.

But it is not capable of surviving on its own. It needs people to provide for it or it will die. It will be sentient on day, but as you said yourself, in other words than these, how developed it will get does not matter. Granted, it now has rudemetery thought, but so do squirls. All that in mind, I ask; What makes the baby who cannot survive on his own differant from the foetus that cannot survive on its own?

The baby, as I've said many times before, is sentient. It has thoughts, feelings, wants, desires, and can make decisions for itself. A squirrel's brain is fully developed, and, regardless of its size, squirrels are not mindless vegetables. They make complex decisions every day of their lives that every human does, but with simply less excess thought capacity than us. It is a matter of scale. A fully functioning baby's brain has an exponentially higher amount of neural connections (which grows every day after birth) than a foetus, and likewise than a squirrel.

[Omnicracy]

I do give you the right to make your own dessition. You may choose to have sex or you may choose not to have sex. If you choose the former, why should you be able to kill human life if you are unhappy with the known consequences of your actions?

Which is exactly what he was getting at. What makes you have the authority to tell another person what to do with their life? Your version of 'right' and 'wrong' is relative, as my and other's opinions have stated, so why do we have to live by what you say is the 'right' way? Are our opinions not valid?

Ah. I know understand your argument. I still comleatly dissagree, but at least I now understand.

But it is not capable of surviving on its own. It needs people to provide for it or it will die. It will be sentient on day, but as you said yourself, in other words than these, how developed it will get does not matter. Granted, it now has rudemetery thought, but so do squirls. All that in mind, I ask; What makes the baby who cannot survive on his own differant from the foetus that cannot survive on its own?

The baby, as I've said many times before, is sentient. It has thoughts, feelings, wants, desires, and can make decisions for itself. A squirrel's brain is fully developed, and, regardless of its size, squirrels are not mindless vegetables. They make complex decisions every day of their lives that every human does, but with simply less excess thought capacity than us. It is a matter of scale. A fully functioning baby's brain has an exponentially higher amount of neural connections (which grows every day after birth) than a foetus, and likewise than a squirrel.

One quick thing we can all agree on: Rape should be illegal due to violation of rights. Murder should be illegal do to violation of rights. We agree on that? Good.

You have not adressed my post at all. You may choose to have sex. I do not believe there is anything immoral about sex, so I have no idea what that whole "right" thing was about. My point was, once you have made your choice, what give you the right to kill something that is human because of the consequences of your actions?

My point was not that squirrels were mindless, my point was that they make complex decisions every day of their lives. As you said, they are not as developed as humans. Just because the developmental rate has changed, does not mean they are as of yet on par with an adult human in thought capasity. In fact, children have the same intelectual capabilities of chimps. Just because they are more developed does not mean they are fully developed, so why does an increase in developement that still requires full-time care from an adult mark the point it can no longer be killed?

[Eradium]

On a slightly different point. About 90% of pregnancies self-abort (Usually as a result of the foetus being 'unfit' due to abnormalities and dying. Although some are due to the actions of the woman while during the first weeks. Say intake of alcohol and other toxins.), I don't have the figures handy, this was told to us in our lectures (So even if they got it wrong, lets assume it's hypothetically true for the sake of it.). Anyway, the woman is not usually aware of the pregnancy before it aborts. I wonder what people people think of this, is the unknowing termination of a foetus through intake a sin and is the high self-termination rate just a "such is the way of things" matter that just needs to be overlooked in the name of procreation. Or is the foetus not regarded by as sufficiently advanced at that point (usually within the first month or two).

[Omnicracy]

On a slightly different point. About 90% of pregnancies self-abort (Usually as a result of the foetus being 'unfit' due to abnormalities and dying. Although some are due to the actions of the woman while during the first weeks. Say intake of alcohol and other toxins.), I don't have the figures handy, this was told to us in our lectures (So even if they got it wrong, lets assume it's hypothetically true for the sake of it.). Anyway, the woman is not usually aware of the pregnancy before it aborts. I wonder what people people think of this, is the unknowing termination of a foetus through intake a sin and is the high self-termination rate just a "such is the way of things" matter that just needs to be overlooked in the name of procreation. Or is the foetus not regarded by as sufficiently advanced at that point (usually within the first month or two).

The problems/accidents you speak of are like dieing in a car crash or falling of a cliff. They are sad, but what is to be done?

[Eradium]

Yeah, they can't really be avoided, I was just curious to what other people think.

[Omnicracy]

Yeah, they can't really be avoided, I was just curious to what other people think.

I doubt you'll get many oppinions greatly varied from my own.

[Eradium]

I didn't think I would, it's a pretty easy thing to decide on in the grand scheme of things. But it's early in the morn and I'm just waiting for the book of the week on Radio 4.

[Allbeama]

Known. Irrelevant. We do not allow the mentally handicapped to be killed because they are a burden on the system or there family or any host of other unethical reasons.

It is irrelevant that life will develop and will become a free-willed sentient being with unique ideas and feelings?

But the key is that the handicapped person is sentient, albeit with a disability. They are still people, and are conscious, able to make their own decisions, unlike a foetus.

The problem is that the foetus isn't sentient yet. The person that would have developed, given the proper time, doesn't exist at that point. There is no-one inside of the foetus, it is nothing more than a collection of tissue.

But what if they are not sentient? What if there brain were damaged from birth and never developed any for of thinking higher than, say, a dog?

So why can the baby not be killed? It cannot survive on its own. If I were to take a new born and leave it in the middle of the street, would it not die?

Why not kill such a person as you mentioned? They are not capable of really living so what is the purpose of their life? What is sacrosanct about that life?

To believe that life is absolutely sacred, is as foolish to me to believe in absolute morality. or absolute objectivity. There is no absolute, everything cannot be defined in black and white terms and anything can be found to have exceptions.

[Avenio]

One quick thing we can all agree on: Rape should be illegal due to violation of rights. Murder should be illegal do to violation of rights. We agree on that? Good.

You have not adressed my post at all. You may choose to have sex. I do not believe there is anything immoral about sex, so I have no idea what that whole "right" thing was about. My point was, once you have made your choice, what give you the right to kill something that is human because of the consequences of your actions?

But the problem is our definitions of whom is in possession of these rights are polar opposites. Murder, in my opinion, is the purposeful taking of another sentient being's life, which doesn't include foetuses before consciousness. This leads to my point that you have not addressed either, what makes your particular view of what is murder and what isn't the correct one?

My point was not that squirrels were mindless, my point was that they make complex decisions every day of their lives. As you said, they are not as developed as humans. Just because the developmental rate has changed, does not mean they are as of yet on par with an adult human in thought capasity. In fact, children have the same intelectual capabilities of chimps. Just because they are more developed does not mean they are fully developed, so why does an increase in developement that still requires full-time care from an adult mark the point it can no longer be killed?

Foetal development is largely focused on the development of the anatomy, ie, bones, the nervous system, organs, blood vessels, etc. The foetus is focusing almost all of its resources into building itself into a being that can survive outside of the womb if something goes wrong. After the baby is born, it has most of its organs, blood vessels and structure already in working order, and the main focus of its development is in the brain. The point in which a baby's development shifts from physiological to neurological is the defining moment of consciousness, the point at which the brain begins to wire itself to become a full human being, is the moment it becomes sentient. In a squirrel, it develops its physiology and its neurology at roughly the same proportions, as its brain is much less complex than ours.

[Omnicracy]

Known. Irrelevant. We do not allow the mentally handicapped to be killed because they are a burden on the system or there family or any host of other unethical reasons.

It is irrelevant that life will develop and will become a free-willed sentient being with unique ideas and feelings?

But the key is that the handicapped person is sentient, albeit with a disability. They are still people, and are conscious, able to make their own decisions, unlike a foetus.

The problem is that the foetus isn't sentient yet. The person that would have developed, given the proper time, doesn't exist at that point. There is no-one inside of the foetus, it is nothing more than a collection of tissue.

But what if they are not sentient? What if there brain were damaged from birth and never developed any for of thinking higher than, say, a dog?

So why can the baby not be killed? It cannot survive on its own. If I were to take a new born and leave it in the middle of the street, would it not die?

Why not kill such a person as you mentioned? They are not capable of really living so what is the purpose of their life? What is sacrosanct about that life?

To believe that life is absolutely sacred, is as foolish to me to believe in absolute morality. or absolute objectivity. There is no absolute, everything cannot be defined in black and white terms and anything can be found to have exceptions.

The fact that it is still human.

I both disagree and agree. While there are cases where abortion should be allowed (exception), why should a bad dessision on ones part rightfuly case the death of a human who had no choice in the mater?

[Gauntleted Fist]

What is your opinion on abortion?

If a woman wishes an abortion, let her have one.

[Omnicracy]

One quick thing we can all agree on: Rape should be illegal due to violation of rights. Murder should be illegal do to violation of rights. We agree on that? Good.

You have not adressed my post at all. You may choose to have sex. I do not believe there is anything immoral about sex, so I have no idea what that whole "right" thing was about. My point was, once you have made your choice, what give you the right to kill something that is human because of the consequences of your actions?

But the problem is our definitions of whom is in possession of these rights are polar opposites. Murder, in my opinion, is the purposeful taking of another sentient being's life, which doesn't include foetuses before consciousness. This leads to my point that you have not addressed either, what makes your particular view of what is murder and what isn't the correct one?

My point was not that squirrels were mindless, my point was that they make complex decisions every day of their lives. As you said, they are not as developed as humans. Just because the developmental rate has changed, does not mean they are as of yet on par with an adult human in thought capasity. In fact, children have the same intelectual capabilities of chimps. Just because they are more developed does not mean they are fully developed, so why does an increase in developement that still requires full-time care from an adult mark the point it can no longer be killed?

Foetal development is largely focused on the development of the anatomy, ie, bones, the nervous system, organs, blood vessels, etc. The foetus is focusing almost all of its resources into building itself into a being that can survive outside of the womb if something goes wrong. After the baby is born, it has most of its organs, blood vessels and structure already in working order, and the main focus of its development is in the brain. The point in which a baby's development shifts from physiological to neurological is the defining moment of consciousness, the point at which the brain begins to wire itself to become a full human being, is the moment it becomes sentient. In a squirrel, it develops its physiology and its neurology at roughly the same proportions, as its brain is much less complex than ours.

That thing we can agree on was not to be used in saying abortion is murder. It was there because you were speaking of imposing my idea of what was right. I had to make sure we had a base of lagality/morality we could agree upon. That said, do you care to revisit and re-respond to my last post?

Just because it is the moment the path that leads to sentience is taken, does not make it the moment sentience is achieved. Forget about the squirrel. You misunderstood what was ment by it anyway. Sentience is our ability to have this discusion and understand the concepts we discuss. A baby would be incapable of understaning any of this, not because it has not learned it yet, but because its mental state is not yet developed enough to comprehend the idea of hand, let alone the idea of kill. Does that fit your defenition of sentient?