[Mikey69]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I thought we were already discussing this on another thread. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My apologies, I hastily started this thread and should have been paying more attention.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by Viscount To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I happen to have a lump of coal here that you might like to fit to a golden ring for the low, low price of a few thousand dead Presidents (+Hamilton and Franklin).

What does this even mean?

Dead Presidents? The U.S. has only had 44, and not all of them are even dead. Where do the rest of them come from?

[Viscount]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What does this even mean? Dead Presidents? The U.S. has only had 44, and not all of them are even dead. Where do the rest of them come from?

I apologize. Allow me to clarify.

Dead Presidents = an expression denoting money. You know, because the bills and coins have photos of dead Presidents on them, in addition to Hamilton and Franklin?

As for the coal thing, it comes down to potential. With the right amount of pressure over a period of time, coal can be compressed into diamond. Therefore, each chunk of coal we burn has the potential to be a diamond. If the argument for potential is to be considered as valid, then any object should be judged on its potential and coal should have the same value as a diamond.

[Slowandeasy1]

	Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's establish some common grounds here and focus on one aspect of the abortion debate. Premise: A PERSON is always worthy of legal protection. Which means if the fetus is a PERSON, abortion should always be illegal. Good so far? Both sides? I think that's about the only common ground there is.

There is no common ground here either.

1. In most third world jurisdictions a person has no legal status until they are at least 24 months of age.

2. In most second world jurisdictions, a person has no legal status until the age of 12 months.

3. In most first world jurisdictions, a fetus does not have legal status until they are at least 12 weeks gestation. In addtion, there are the legal rights of the mother which may take precendence over the rights of the fetus up until the time of birth.

4. The world infant mortality rate is currently around 5% for those live births up to just less than 1 year of age and around 8% for children under the age of 5. Lets get a handle on the deaths of live children before getting too morlly outraged about potential children.

5. There are 6.5 Billion people on this rock. Do we really need anymore?

6. In my opinion, a woman or a couple have no right to bring a child into this world unless they are able to feed it, support it and love it for the duration of its time with them. These 3 factors are paramont to raising a healthy person who is capable of contributing to our society as a whole.

Here is a dose of reality you might want to ponder. Look carefully and calculate how many children must die each day for lack of food, shelter and sanitation. This is criminal.:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Premise: A PERSON is always worthy of legal protection. Which means if the fetus is a PERSON, abortion should always be illegal. Good so far? Both sides? I think that's about the only common ground there is.

Nope, not even that. I will stipulate that a fetus is a person in the same way an acorn is an oak tree, sure.

However, "abortion should always be illegal if a fetus is a person" I will not agree to.

There is such a thing as "justifiable homocide" both in morality and jurisprudence.

Some forms of abortion could possibly fit into this category.

The main problems I run across with abortion debates is the artificial and wholly fallacious view that there are only two choices: pro-choice and pro-life.

There is a middle way which is both, and that's where you'll find me and likely many others who typically avoid abortion debates because they are dominated quickly by the extremes and so are a waste of perfectly good electrons for the rest of us.

[Slowandeasy1]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is a middle way which is both, and that's where you'll find me and likely many others who typically avoid abortion debates because they are dominated quickly by the extremes and so are a waste of perfectly good electrons for the rest of us.

Agreed; but, that is why they call us logical INTJ's tough minded.

[Judoka]

Do you really need to ask this questions? We can conquer anything we want. Animals can't period.
We build ourselves separated environments from nature to live in because we don't belong there.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Slowandeasy1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It was not long ago, and is still the case in places, were a child is not considered human until they are at least two years old.

That's fascinating...I had not heard of a 2 year age limit. Where was/is that?

I do know that in prior centuries in Western Europe the teaching was that ensoulment occurred at 40 days after conception, and abortifacient herbs were used, though rather quietly, particularly where another pregnanacy might harm the mother's health.

[Zsych]

A lot of animals build houses of sorts that make their lives convenient, and plenty of animals are at least effected by stuff like music (most humans can't make music either)

Anyway, considering the ********** that are counted as human, I'd say our human DNA is the only real common factor.

Personally, I'd consider the human embryo human myself. Whether that stops me from killing it is a separate issue.

[Autumnleaf]

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's establish some common grounds here and focus on one aspect of the abortion debate. Premise: A PERSON is always worthy of legal protection. Which means if the fetus is a PERSON, abortion should always be illegal. Good so far? Both sides? I think that's about the only common ground there is. --- So the pro-choice reasoning (well, my pro-choice reasoning. I can't speak for anyone else) in the simplest terms: 1. This is dependent on whether you're a vegetarian or think animals should be able to be killed for our benefit. If you're not one, proceed. 2. Does merely having human DNA make a fetus a PERSON? No, it doesn't. I think a better question is: Why is it wrong to kill people? If the zygote can't feel anything, can't think, and nothing makes it remotely more human than a microbe other than its A, T, C, G combination, then why on earth would it be worthy of protection? After all, they're just molecules. You don't equate a fertilized egg as a chicken, and you can't sell blueprints with material and means to build it as a completed building, nor should you equate the "DNA Blueprint" with "person". 2a. The potential argument. "Well, it will almost always be a human." First of all, you can't even know for sure how many cases of unreported, spontaneously aborted pregnancies there are because even the mothers themselves don't know they are pregnant. Even if it has 99.999999% chance of doing that, why is more people good? And why shouldn't we focus on what it is? Maybe I should just get a 100% on my next Physics test because I have a 99.999999% chance of it happening anyway. No. I haven't taken the test. Even though everyone knows that is the case (I'm making this example up), the physics teacher still can't treat potential as reality. 3. So where do we draw the arbitrary lines? First trimester? Second? Third? The day before it's born? But isn't that the same as the day after it's born? If we say we can't kill it the day after it's born, but it is permitted the day before, then that is also arbitrary. 3a. When it can survive outside of the womb, biologically (provided that nourishment is provided as any normal infant who are not premature). I'm hesitant to have it depend on technology, however, as it can determine this question, up to a point where almost every pregnancy would have to end in childbirth, which is a societal problem in itself. OR 3b. When it becomes distinctively human. After all, we cause animals pain all the time. It's legal to kill gorillas and chimpanzees. So when does that happen? I don't know. Would you kill a zygote or an adult chimpanzee? That's a serious question. Unless you're pro-life who happens to oppose killing/consumption of all animals at any stage of evolutionary development, then I think this is a valid question to consider. I never considered 3a and 3b seriously because it's almost never an issue with most abortions (which happen during the first and second trimester, when neither applies), but for the sake of following the philosophical side of "personhood" as far as possible, maybe it's worthy of debate. I would request that people avoid the "I consider x to be personhood, therefore it is and there is no debate" line because then there'd be no discussion. And if your holy book (or societal norms) says something and that's your only reason and it's not open for discussion, it doesn't really contribute to debate either, however legitimate this reason is to you. But this is a free for all, so do proceed if you must.

2. Is not something you can just gloss over because 'it doesn't look like a person or feel pain or know what it is'. There are many old people who fit one or all of your criteria there. There are even not-so-old people who fit in that category. Most people would consider killing such people off a bad idea.

2a. It is human. A young human. Intentionally killing a young human is something called murder up to an arbitrary point where we call it abortion, which leads us to 3.

3a. is a false definition. If a baby is born and is left alone it will die. Come to think of it, isn't it illegal to do that to a baby?

3b. When fertilization happens it is human. A young human. There is no getting around that unless you lie to yourself about what a young human looks like.

Abortion is a lost cause for several reasons. None of those reasons being the merit of abortion being a good idea.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Condo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As far as I am aware, human cancer cells contain mutated human DNA. This is different, yet it is human. For some reason, we don't have issues killing cells that harm us providing they don't have the small potential to grow into one of us. It seems to be recurring in these topics, if its like us, then it has the same rights

That would be because killing individual cells doesn't cause all the cells with that DNA to stop functioning.

	I take it, by that logic, that amputation in order to better the life of the person is wrong? Just because there is a sufficient amount of cells, doesn't mean it has the same sense of "personhood" as others

Again, incorrect, as amputation (unless something goes horribly wrong) doesn't stop the function of the remaining cells.

	Life is specifically from birth - You cannot count from fertilisation. If you wanted to count from cell life alone, you're at maximum a couple of years old. A "Human being" may refer to humanity as a whole, but for the sake of personhood, refering to a living, breathing person seems much more managable.

Oh? So, someone who is choking on an atomic fireball may be aborted? How about someone who is in pulmonary arrest?

	Just because you change the semantics, doesn't remove guilt. Im sure many parents would feel at least some guilt with abortion. However, which is crueller, "murdering" a child you don't think you can have without sufficient damage to economic, emotional or social stability, or forcing a child through that because all murder is wrong?

Murder. Every time. Ask yourself this question of a newborn to the same mother.

	Because, in relation to personhood, I'd guess most people consider what makes a person a person, a unique individual, is not DNA. It is thought, emotion, ideas, experience. So when trying to define the start/end of personhood, you have to take them into account. If a fetus cannot think, feel, perceive, remember... It isn't a person.

So, you'd support legalizing infanticide? That would fit your definition.

	A contributing person, sure. But even the ability to think and feel would merit personhood. Hey, most animals are capable of it. But I guess you have no problem with meat, leather, animal testing (to some extent), and you don't spend your free time arguing against human globalisation?

You've given no support to why "thinking" and "feeling" are requirements. (Some would say that INTJs could be aborted on this basis.)

	Those without the ability to think, feel, perceive, experience, express, socialise - The very things that make us human. You could argue that many people are in a vegetative state, yet are still human. To me, you wouldn't be a person anymore, and in that state I would happily accept death - That is, of course, if I could still understand enough to realise what was happening.

Again, this would say that you support infanticide as a legal practice.

	Overall, a person is someone who is, first of all, living. Not just cellulaly reproducing and existing physically, but in a way life does exist - Being able to interact with surroundings, think and, more importantly, I think, feel.

OK, so what about infanticide? Newborns don't qualify under your definition.

---------- Post added 09-27-2010 at 07:40 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The whole point of this thread is narrow focus, so forgive me if I don't respond to every part of it. I'll address the parts which are the premises upon which you base your later arguments. Being "unique" from the mother gives it protection from being killed? But how many "unique" animals do we kill? Again, it goes back to the question of whether you would save a zygote over an adult chimpanzee. The former is no more advanced than any microbe, yet the latter clearly has a very high degree of mental sophistication, self awareness and capacity to experience pain. Why does having the blueprint or simply being unique make it worthy of protection?

Because human life has sufficient intrinsic value that we protect it. We have laws against murder that are far more stringent than laws about killing animals. The precedent is already there.

	Nobody is denying that the fetus is killed. The question is whether the fetus can be legally killed, and whether or not they should be judged at the same capacity of a human.

First, I would disagree with the statement that nobody is denying that the fetus is killed. Many will not say that it is a unique being or even living, so you can't kill what isn't unique from its host or not alive.

Second, if it is human, it has the value of being a human being. If eugenics has taught us anything, it is that all human life has value.

Because Human DNA blueprint is not good enough. Potential is not good enough. Just being a member of our species is not good enough. Unless you're a vegetarian or vegan, you clearly condone the killing of animals, even pigs, which are very intelligent and like us in a lot of ways. Why shouldn't we kill another human being? Because 1. you would be causing pain to the human being as well as emotional anguish 2. you have no right to, because he is equal to you 3. we as a society preserve humans because it promotes stability if we can't just kill anyone we come across. On the premise that human DNA alone is not good enough, the fetus must be evaluated on the basis of its possession of human characteristics that sets it apart from the animals we're perfectly comfortable killing. If you disagree with the premise, then we'd have to agree to disagree.

4. Human life has intrinsic value such that it should be protected, regardless of the state that it is in. Human life ends, and as such, we can allow nature to take its course, but to intentionally terminate human life simply violates a fundamental ethic: Humans should not be killed without justification. History has taught us this lesson over and over and over.

[Condo]

You seem to think I want to kill everyone who cannot think in the same way as we do...

Last time I checked, infants can feel pain. They can think. They develope attachments and show emotion. And, most importantly, they can learn.

Fetuses can not.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Condo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You seem to think I want to kill everyone who cannot think in the same way as we do... Last time I checked, infants can feel pain. They can think. They develope attachments and show emotion. And, most importantly, they can learn. Fetuses can not.

Why does the ability to feel pain relevant? Are you saying that killing is acceptable when no pain is felt?

[Condo]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If eugenics has taught us anything, it is that all human life has value.

Yes, all life has value. But is it equal?

Is the life of a murdering, racist, sexist, crazed psycopath worth just as much as a philantrophist? I presume you mean value to society, yes? Since I don't see how else you can order "value" when it comes to "life".

You'd hold off killing a few cells because they're just as pure and human as a psychotic rapist?

Perhaps you think those that carried out experiements into eugenics are just as worthy of life as yourself.


It might have value, doesn't mean it is equal. Once again people seem to be fine with killing animal / plant cells, bacteria, virus' and so on, that have no great benefit to us, yet an unliving fetus that is still developing has the same rights as everyone else...

---------- Post added 09-28-2010 at 04:58 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why does the ability to feel pain relevant? Are you saying that killing is acceptable when no pain is felt?

Well the current laws on animal slaughter suggest it is...

And if they do not have the ability to feel pain (Note: Not "Currently are not feeling pain"), you are not harming them physically. They cannot feel. Thus, if they were to die, they would not be in any kind of pain or have the ability to understand it. So yes, it is acceptable, completely, when they are not able to even imagine pain, let alone feel it.

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because human life has sufficient intrinsic value that we protect it. We have laws against murder that are far more stringent than laws about killing animals. The precedent is already there.

Just for having 23 pairs of chromosomes? What values? Valuable to whom? To the fetus? Does the fetus value anything? To the mother? To society? Intrinsically valuable? What does that even mean? Says who? You? Religious leaders? Just because there is a legal precedent doesn't mean it's right. Qualify your statements.

	First, I would disagree with the statement that nobody is denying that the fetus is killed. Many will not say that it is a unique being or even living, so you can't kill what isn't unique from its host or not alive.

I'm sorry. I meant I'm not denying it.

	Second, if it is human, it has the value of being a human being. If eugenics has taught us anything, it is that all human life has value.

The fact that it has human DNA doesn't prevent it from being a unicellular organism.

	4. [A living organism DNA] has intrinsic value such that it should be protected, regardless of the state that it is in. Human life ends, and as such, we can allow nature to take its course, but to intentionally terminate human life simply violates a fundamental ethic: Humans should not be killed without justification.

Bold: Says who?

Underlined: Why do we have this fundamental ethic? Do you have any justifications or reasoning? Just because there are justifications that doesn't mean they're right. If I want to kill a thief, I can justify it to say that I was protecting myself. What justification is enough justification? Should pigs be killed without justification?

	History has taught us this lesson over and over and over.

Don't make grand, sweeping statements if you aren't going to qualify them. If you can say it, then make a case for it. Be specific. What lesson? What event in history? How is it comparable?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Condo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, all life has value. But is it equal?

Yes.

	Is the life of a murdering, racist, sexist, crazed psycopath worth just as much as a philantrophist? I presume you mean value to society, yes? Since I don't see how else you can order "value" when it comes to "life".

There is no "order" to it. Human life is human life.

	You'd hold off killing a few cells because they're just as pure and human as a psychotic rapist?

Yes.

	Perhaps you think those that carried out experiements into eugenics are just as worthy of life as yourself.

They are.

	It might have value, doesn't mean it is equal. Once again people seem to be fine with killing animal / plant cells, bacteria, virus' and so on, that have no great benefit to us, yet an unliving fetus that is still developing has the same rights as everyone else...

Animal and plant life is of different and lower value than human life.

And the fetus is living.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...the fetus is living.

So are are the sperm and egg that made it.

[pottersjar]

Personhood?

Without any real medical dispute, human life begins at conception; separate living being with its own separate DNA. The rest is just development. But for the sake of the question, I would offer some common-sense common ground. Neither side of the moral debate would be happy with this (and therefore, neither would I) but I offer it as a reasoned determination based on objective factors.

If we rely on a medical-legal paradigm, we would be consistent if we determine that the same indicia of the end of living, human personhood determines the beginning of living, human personhood. In that regard, we have recognized as a society that living human personhood terminates (1) when there is no heartbeat; or (2) when there is no brain activity. Medical science can determine at what point in early development brain activity and heartbeat are detectable.

Bear in mind, a line closer to conception might be drawn on the same principles of consistency. Under the law, a man driving drunk who strikes a woman killing her unborn child commits a homicide (the killing of a human being) regardless whether the woman is on her way to a baby shower or on the way to have an abortion. The law recognizes the human person as a victim, and it has always done so since the common law crime of infanticide. And this is so in any pregnancy regardless of how far along it is.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So are are the sperm and egg that made it.

But they aren't unique, living human beings. They are cells from the parent host.

[binglemarie]

It seems possible to me that personhood is not a binary characteristic, that is, there might be more options than "is a person" and "is not a person." There may be a continuum. Jung wrote of "individuation" and other psychologists write of "personalization," implying that even adults can add to their personhood. If this is the case, then a fetus might certainly be less of a person than an adult, who is more of a person than a child, who is more of a person than an infant. Whether being less of a person implies having fewer rights is beyond me right now, but I think the concept of continuum is something to consider.

[Facepalm]

Why are we arguing if the fetus is a person or not? IT IS SO SIMPLE! =) let a INTJ explain it.




If it is not a “human being” then who cares if you kill it?


If you feel it is a human being before birth why do you care its not your kid, do you care about everyone that is shot in the street? Would you care if I died? No.

[CoMpLiCaTeD]

I'm 100% pro choice and to skip to the end blah! blah! blah! I, once again I don't believe that you should be considered a human being until you are clipped from your mother. Until then I look at you as more of an extension or part of a human being, but not one yourself.

---------- Post added 10-10-2010 at 12:10 AM ----------

AND Facepalm, I really like your explanation.