The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 26

TV's Frink said:

I'd like to see a more balanced source of the story than Lifenews.

 I fail to see how the statement of particular facts makes something untrustworthy.  Merely having an agenda doesn't make a story untrue.  One could easily strip away the biased phrasing and the quotes and British laws would remain true.  But since only Left-leaning news sources are considered reliable, here's something from ABC.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/premature-early-live-baby/story?id=8930142

The facts remain the same.  The baby may have likely died, but it was not the facility's right to take the mother out of the decision-making process.

Bingowings said:

Of course a fetus is less than a person it's only formative stimulus has been a swooshing noise and the vague feeling of being warm and wet.

If the parents have invested hopes and aspirations into the progress of the pregnancy it's an important wiggly bundle of kicking flesh to them. If you believe, without any evidence it has a magic ghost put inside by an invisible benefactor it's probably sacred, but a person?

People only become people when they can demonstrate a definable persona.

The person thing starts sort of around the toddler stage when the child stops acting like a screaming muscle and starts acting more like a puppy.

Try asking a baby if it likes yo-yos. If you get an answer more meaningful than spit bubbles, screams, involuntary giggles or flatulence you may be on to something.

 You swim in very murky moral waters with an attitude like this.  If the primary value to a human being is contingent on the invested hopes and aspirations others have placed in that person, such arguments could be used to argue in favor of slavery, of murder, of genocide.  Human value is either innate or it is not.  I choose innateness.

To complicate your argument, you say that a person starts sort of around the toddler stage.  While I find this to be a bunch of bunk, since children are learning language skills before they are even born, it is true that self-awareness forms later.  This could be useful reading.

http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/Five%20levels%20.pdf

So according to your argument, a child could still be "aborted" post delivery, up to toddler stage.  Someone who reads the article could justify abortion up to 5 years old.

Many of my patients have no hopes inested in them, no aspirations.  I was taking care of a time consuming hospice patient yesterday.  His can be very confused at times, and he receives large doses of pain medication.  He will die on his own soon.  But he has also expressed a desire to live.  Should the state decide that we should remove all life-saving measures because it is a waste of resources?  Should his family look at him as a 100 kg of kicking flesh because he has no future?

When "full-fledged" persons presume to define the personhood of others, historically we have found ourselves amidst the most horrendous atrocities.

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

I'd like to see a more balanced source of the story than Lifenews.

 I fail to see how the statement of particular facts makes something untrustworthy. 

I think what Frink is afraid of is that they may have left out important bits of info, exaggerated others and used questionable choice of wording that favors the side they favor.  I am not saying they did, but that is can happen when the source is untrustworthy.  

I understand his concern, but the factual portions are what are most relevant, and are rather difficult to dispute.  Obviously they are arguing a point, but the story could easily be backed up with a little more googling.

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

Of course a fetus is less than a person it's only formative stimulus has been a swooshing noise and the vague feeling of being warm and wet.

If the parents have invested hopes and aspirations into the progress of the pregnancy it's an important wiggly bundle of kicking flesh to them. If you believe, without any evidence it has a magic ghost put inside by an invisible benefactor it's probably sacred, but a person?

People only become people when they can demonstrate a definable persona.

The person thing starts sort of around the toddler stage when the child stops acting like a screaming muscle and starts acting more like a puppy.

Try asking a baby if it likes yo-yos. If you get an answer more meaningful than spit bubbles, screams, involuntary giggles or flatulence you may be on to something.

 You swim in very murky moral waters with an attitude like this.  If the primary value to a human being is contingent on the invested hopes and aspirations others have placed in that person, such arguments could be used to argue in favor of slavery, of murder, of genocide.  Human value is either innate or it is not.  I choose innateness.

To complicate your argument, you say that a person starts sort of around the toddler stage.  While I find this to be a bunch of bunk, since children are learning language skills before they are even born, it is true that self-awareness forms later.  This could be useful reading.

http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/Five%20levels%20.pdf

So according to your argument, a child could still be "aborted" post delivery, up to toddler stage.  Someone who reads the article could justify abortion up to 5 years old.

Many of my patients have no hopes inested in them, no aspirations.  I was taking care of a time consuming hospice patient yesterday.  His can be very confused at times, and he receives large doses of pain medication.  He will die on his own soon.  But he has also expressed a desire to live.  Should the state decide that we should remove all life-saving measures because it is a waste of resources?  Should his family look at him as a 100 kg of kicking flesh because he has no future?

When "full-fledged" persons presume to define the personhood of others, historically we have found ourselves amidst the most horrendous atrocities.

 hey, why stop at removing life-saving measures?  Just fill him full of arsenic.  Of course make sure he can't tell you whether or not he likes yo-yos first.    By Bingo's asinine logic, it should be perfect legal for me to walk into a hospital and shoot and kill a bunch of newborns.  After they are not yet toddlers and can't tell me whether or not they like yo-yos, so I guess they are not people so killing them is not murder! 

darth_ender said:

I understand his concern, but the factual portions are what are most relevant, and are rather difficult to dispute.  Obviously they are arguing a point, but the story could easily be backed up with a little more googling.

 the way facts are worded can affect how someone interprets the story, as can leaving out important facts.   Frink would have no idea whether or not either was done in this case

A story:

Person A was walking down Smith Street.  At the corner he turned down 6th Ave.   When he did, he saw person B.    Upon seeing person B, person A shot and killed person B.    

Fact: person B did not have a gun

Fact person B was not threating person A's life

That makes it look like person A committed murder, doesn't it?

Now lets look at a couple of fact left out of the story:

Fact: person B had a knife

Fact: when person A turned the corner, he saw person B in the process of stabbing person C.   He had already stabbed person C multiple times and when person A turned the corner, person B was about stab person C again. 

See how leaving out facts can change the story?   

I understand.  Believe me, I've read a great deal of anti-Mormon literature.  Biased stories do require leaving out facts, which is legitimate.  But usually the big problem with biased stories is the conclusions they draw, not leaving the uneducated reader to formulate his/her own conclusions.  This story provided enough facts to allow someone to draw their own conclusions or at least do further research.

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

Of course a fetus is less than a person it's only formative stimulus has been a swooshing noise and the vague feeling of being warm and wet.

If the parents have invested hopes and aspirations into the progress of the pregnancy it's an important wiggly bundle of kicking flesh to them. If you believe, without any evidence it has a magic ghost put inside by an invisible benefactor it's probably sacred, but a person?

People only become people when they can demonstrate a definable persona.

The person thing starts sort of around the toddler stage when the child stops acting like a screaming muscle and starts acting more like a puppy.

Try asking a baby if it likes yo-yos. If you get an answer more meaningful than spit bubbles, screams, involuntary giggles or flatulence you may be on to something.

 You swim in very murky moral waters with an attitude like this.  If the primary value to a human being is contingent on the invested hopes and aspirations others have placed in that person, such arguments could be used to argue in favor of slavery, of murder, of genocide.  Human value is either innate or it is not.  I choose innateness.

To complicate your argument, you say that a person starts sort of around the toddler stage.  While I find this to be a bunch of bunk, since children are learning language skills before they are even born, it is true that self-awareness forms later.  This could be useful reading.

http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/Five%20levels%20.pdf

So according to your argument, a child could still be "aborted" post delivery, up to toddler stage.  Someone who reads the article could justify abortion up to 5 years old.

Many of my patients have no hopes inested in them, no aspirations.  I was taking care of a time consuming hospice patient yesterday.  His can be very confused at times, and he receives large doses of pain medication.  He will die on his own soon.  But he has also expressed a desire to live.  Should the state decide that we should remove all life-saving measures because it is a waste of resources?  Should his family look at him as a 100 kg of kicking flesh because he has no future?

When "full-fledged" persons presume to define the personhood of others, historically we have found ourselves amidst the most horrendous atrocities.

You are mixing terms and over simplifying the issues.

A baby is a human but not a person.

The hopes that fully formed people have for the baby make it important to them, maybe more important than a elderly relative suffering the effects of dementia who has lost some of his or her personal identity but still at least has something of one.

The baby has the potential of become a person the elderly relative holds the certainty of eventually not being one but the baby isn't a person yet and may never become one.

Arguably some non-humans show more signs of being people than babies.

And a newly formed fetus isn't a baby. 

The problem is that you're redefining the word "person." The word does not mean what you're saying it does. Your logic could be used to justify many, many atrocious acts, so the term "person" must be kept more inclusive to prevent that. Slavery was justified in part by your logic. Abortion is now being justified the same way.

The Holocaust as well.

The only reason your argument has any merit is because you and all pro-choice folks choose to define "person" as you see fit.  Let's look at my hypothetical situation that you never addressed before in a previous comment.

Let me give an analogy that I've thought long on.  The argument that an unborn child is not yet a person, as advocated by Mary Anne Warren, is severely flawed in my mind.  She suggests the following criteria define a person:

• consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain
• reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)
• self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
• the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics
• the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both

Now let's hypothesize on an analogous train of thought.  Think of a man.  This man, due to the actions of a young male and female having fun with alcohol and a car, is injured and ends up comatose in a hospital bed.  In our little scenario, we have the technology to make a 97% guarantee that this man will not only come out of his coma (in about nine months), but will in fact ultimately make a full recovery, though there is a good chance his memory will be impaired.  But at the present we cannot detect any: a) consciousness; b) evidence of reasoning or significant brain activity; c) self-motivated activity; d) effort to communicate; d) enduring self-concepts.  This man is, according to Ms. Warren, not a person.  He is genetically human, but not a person.  The young couple involved did not have insurance, but because they are at fault in this accident, are required to pay for this man's medical bills and treatment.  However, simply euthanizing him is a cheaper option, and they won't be responsible for the physical therapy that would follow.  You see, when they chose to drink and drive, as fun as it was, they simply weren't ready for the consequences/commitment that might follow such actions.  Thank goodness this man was, at least for a time, a very large but ultimately nothing more than, a bunch of cells.

I suspect you would find horror at this situation.  But fortunately, with only a little more fiddling with the definition of person, you could argue that the man in question also has a history, and thus retains his personhood, whereas a fetus (an unborn, and in early stages unformed, baby) has no history.  But now it really seems like we are creating definitions to suit our own ends rather than simply relying on reality.  Let's look at an analogy of such behavior.

Many conservative Christians define the word "cult" to meet their own ends and thus exclude other religions, such as Mormons.  They come up with specific criteria so they make sure they can fit in while other groups do not.  Such does not meet technical definitions of a cult, but since it carries such perjorative weight, they utilize the word according to their own definitions.  I'm in the "in" club, but you're not.  I have the right to be treated with a full amount of respect, and you do not.

It's an identical method of exclusion for convenience.

Darth Vader is a fictional person, he has a history, he likes things he dislikes things.

He was a fictional baby where he hadn't yet formed these tastes, thoughts, personality traits.

A character in a film can be within the context of his fictional world be a person but a baby can not.

It hasn't got the language skills to turn environmental data into thoughts let alone the ability to turn those thoughts into deliberations on future actions.

It can't even survive without assistance.

It is a human biologically, it has value but it's not a person.

Warbler said : hey, why stop at removing life-saving measures?  Just fill him full of arsenic.  Of course make sure he can't tell you whether or not he likes yo-yos first.    By Bingo's asinine logic, it should be perfect legal for me to walk into a hospital and shoot and kill a bunch of newborns.  After they are not yet toddlers and can't tell me whether or not they like yo-yos, so I guess they are not people so killing them is not murder! 

Warbler has me on ignore so I can let him off not contextualising my comments but when he calls them asinine he really should read them first.

I wasn't saying that babies weren't human or not important. I was saying they weren't people. A seed is not a flower. It might become a flower but it might become the topping on a bread loaf or be ground up to make a pain killing opiate. Some flowers spring from bulbs.

That isn't meant to advocate the grinding up of babies you understand I'm just pointing out silliness of equating a fetus with a person.

As for post birth abortions of cause they could happen, many cultures throughout history have and do these things. Cultures do not don't because of the value they place in the baby not the qualities of it's personality.

Bingowings said:

Darth Vader is a fictional person, he has a history, he likes things he dislikes things.

He was a fictional baby where he hadn't yet formed these tastes, thoughts, personality traits.

A character in a film can be within the context of his fictional world be a person but a baby can not.

It hasn't got the language skills to turn environmental data into thoughts let alone the ability to turn those thoughts into deliberations on future actions.

It can't even survive without assistance.

It is a human biologically, it has value but it's not a person.

 To me this is the exact same argument you've already made without addressing the article that warranted the thread bump, without addressing the analogy I made, without addressing the convenience of defining personhood to suit a pro-choice stance, and ignoring several other arguments I've made.

More food for thought?  Why, if a fetus or newborn is not yet a person, is it illegal to kill past a certain point of viability?  What does it matter, especially if done in a pain-free manner?

Why is killing a pregnant woman considered a double homicide, even if the child is at a pre-viable stage?  This may only apply to US laws, but still, how could such be valid?

Honestly, if we're talking the life of a person or pre-person or potential person or partial person, I feel that pro-choicers need to be the ones answering most of the moral questions.  If I don't have DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) paperwork on a patient and that patient goes into cardiac arrest, we assume he/she is a full code and begin CPR regardless of how futile or terminally ill the patient was.  We err on the side of life.  But it seems that pro-choice folks seem to feel that we err on the side of consequence-free sex rather than life.  I'm sorry, but I demand answers to the questions I bring up, otherwise I simply see the needless killing of underdeveloped people.

    A twenty year-old who is sound asleep or passed out drunk doesn't display so many qualities of personhood. You have to wait a period of time for that.

    Unless they are inconvenient to you.

    These unconscious 20 year-olds will only wake up to promote global warming.

Oh good, the "people get abortions because their babies are inconvenient" argument.

Aside from the exceptions I've stated I agree with, that ultimately is the reason for the majority of abortions:

Financial difficulty
Too young
Too many things to do in life
We wanted to have kids later
I have all the kids I wanted
Diapers are icky
It will make me fat
I don't like the father anymore
I was drunk when I got pregnant and would have been more selective had I been sober
This world is overpopulated anyway
This world sucks and I don't want a child to be subject to the evils therein
I don't want to parent alone

Wow, those all sound like they boil down to convenience.  Let's look at the following survey results.

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2004 [6]

Rape, incest, health of mother, and health of child altogether account for 7.5% of all abortions.  The rest are easily labeled as inconveniences, be they social, financial, career, etc. inconveniences.  Even excluding the "other" category since we don't know what they are, they still means that 86.5% of abortions are simply matters of convenience.

I don't think the "people get abortions because their babies are inconvenient" argument is without legs to stand on.

Not too bad for safe and legal, but I don't think the US is exactly keeping them rare.  1.2 million abortions in our country each year.  1.04 million for convenience reasons.  It's a stinking business I tell you.  A stinking business.

TV's Frink said:

Oh good, the "people get abortions because their babies are inconvenient" argument.

      Actually, It was the "All these inconvenient humans are messing up my backyard, but it's okay, my pals and I are so vastly superior, we know how to cull the herd" argument.

darth_ender said:

It's a stinking business I tell you.  A stinking business.

 Everything is a business.  Even religion.

twister111 said:

darth_ender said:

Now let's hypothesize on an analogous train of thought.  Think of a man.  This man, due to the actions of a young male and female having fun with alcohol and a car, is injured and ends up comatose in a hospital bed.  In our little scenario, we have the technology to make a 97% guarantee that this man will not only come out of his coma (in about nine months), but will in fact ultimately make a full recovery, though there is a good chance his memory will be impaired.  But at the present we cannot detect any: a) consciousness; b) evidence of reasoning or significant brain activity; c) self-motivated activity; d) effort to communicate; d) enduring self-concepts.  This man is, according to Ms. Warren, not a person.  He is genetically human, but not a person.  The young couple involved did not have insurance, but because they are at fault in this accident, are required to pay for this man's medical bills and treatment.  However, simply euthanizing him is a cheaper option, and they won't be responsible for the physical therapy that would follow.  You see, when they chose to drink and drive, as fun as it was, they simply weren't ready for the consequences/commitment that might follow such actions.  Thank goodness this man was, at least for a time, a very large but ultimately nothing more than, a bunch of cells.

I suspect you would find horror at this situation.  But fortunately, with only a little more fiddling with the definition of person, you could argue that the man in question also has a history, and thus retains his personhood, whereas a fetus (an unborn, and in early stages unformed, baby) has no history.  But now it really seems like we are creating definitions to suit our own ends rather than simply relying on reality.  Let's look at an analogy of such behavior.

Many conservative" title="www.letusreason.org/Cults1.htm">conservative" target="_blank">http://www.letusreason.org/Cults1.htm">conservative Christians define the word "cult" to meet their own ends and thus exclude other religions, such as Mormons.  They come up with specific criteria so they make sure they can fit in while other groups do not.  Such does not meet technical definitions of a cult, but since it carries such perjorative weight, they utilize the word according to their own definitions.  I'm in the "in" club, but you're not.  I have the right to be treated with a full amount of respect, and you do not.

It's an identical method of exclusion for convenience.

Your analogy is horribly flawed. The injured stranger would've been just fine had he never encountered the young couple. A fetus would need that couple to get together, in some form, to even exist in the first place. A better analogy would be if the woman in the car had a healthy heart and the injured stranger had a heart condition. For whatever reason only her heart could save him before 9 months are up. They could give her a pacemaker and a heart from a corpse, because her body could theoretically handle it, but his definitely needs her heart. Should she be required to give up her heart to this guy?

Now let's remove the car accident from the equation and put the same specifications. Let's say there's some genetic study her boyfriend thought would be neat and she thought so too. The stranger was a part of the study and it's found out that way. For whatever reason he still needs her heart. He will die without it and she could die too from the surgery or organ rejection. Course she might be willing to give her heart to this guy but what if she's not? Would you be okay with forcing her to go through with the surgery if she didn't want it? With laws being made in place to force her to get her heart cut out for this guy? Let's also say that during these 9 months she'd have to basically be a lifeline for this guy by constantly giving blood because of the virus's replication rate. Because of this there are certain food and drink restrictions that she'd have to endure. Plus she'd have to deal with recovering from surgery herself during the time she's giving blood to this guy. Same deal with the heart, only her blood will save him. So what would you say if she didn't want to do any of that? Would you be an advocate for forcing her to give up her heart, blood, 9 months of her time, and quite possibly even her own life for this guy? Moreover would you be okay with laws being put in place that force any individuals found capable of saving people with the same virus to undergo the same surgery/constant blood transfusions?

My analogy's not perfect either but it's a better representation of the situation than a random stupid car crash.

 Twister, let me be the first to point out that darth_ender's analogy is far better than yours. A woman does not have a high risk of death when she is pregnant, and an abortion is more harmful than giving birth (repeated abortions can result in a damaged uterus, preventing the woman from ever having children again). She can also walk around and perform many activities that someone hooked up to another person would not be able to do. In fact, for the first two/three months of pregnancy, most women have no trouble performing activities they could do before they were pregnant. It is also usually the woman's fault if she is pregnant, since she (in just about every case) consented to sex with a man. In ender's scenario, the man and woman made a choice to drink enough to get drunk, and then drive, causing an accident. In your scenario, there was no choice involved, and it is analogous of a pregnancy that was caused by the woman hugging her boyfriend, immobilized her for all nine months, and had the possibility of killing her.

Try again, Twister. I fail to see how your analogy corresponds whatsoever to the realities of pregnancy, and the choice made that begins it.

If I'm way off base with my understanding of the two analogies, forgive me, as I've had about five hours of sleep a night (and less) for a couple weeks. :P

darth_ender said:

This world is overpopulated anyway
This world sucks and I don't want a child to be subject to the evils therein
...

Wow, those all sound like they boil down to convenience.

How do those "boil down to convenience"?