Human life beings at conception, that does not answer the question of when personhood starts, neither is the start of human life relevant to abortion .. no matter the final determination it will not make elective abortion illegal, all deeming the unborn as persons does is move the legalities from privacy to consent, self-defence and the equal protection clause, none of which support the pro-life ideology in any way.
You asked: "Where do you get this basis for believing that for thousands of years life was believed to start at birth?" I offered this as an example. Jewish law and tradition directly affected Christian law and tradition which in turn directly affected US law and tradition. Would you like to offer an historical example that supports personhood from the moment of conception AND has more relevance to the United States than Jewish law? I have spoken of the possibility of self-awareness. I cannot be certain whether the fetus becomes self-aware at the moment the brain can support it, or some time afterwards, so I am willing to accept the capacity for self-awareness as the threshold. On the other hand, when you talk about banning abortion you are talking about pretending the unborn is a person just like anybody who has already been born. If you really wanted to protect life you would be a vegan and advocate protect ALL life. You obviously believe human life is special, so try explaining why humans deserve this extra protection without bringing in the concepts of self-awareness, spirit, or soul. Perhaps you can explain your position on this. I have no idea what a "ginger" might be. But we do often determine life by meaningful thought. A person can be declared "brain dead" so it is possible to declare the body a non-person when there is no more meaningful thought (even if the primitive brain functions are still working). The legal system just considers the newborn a person at the time of birth. Abortion laws are tacked on to satisfy control enthusiasts. That is exactly why I made the comment about IQ tests. You seem to be getting confused between the capacity for meaningful thought and actual meaningful thought. I am not saying the fetus should have to pass an IQ test, but do not demand that the rest of the world accept it as a person before the brain has the capacity to sustain meaningful thought (the last month or so of pregnancy). Meaningless EEG noise and reflex responses do not count as meaningful thought. No, you can declare a person dead when their brain is no longer operational (even if the heart is still functional). That is how we get donor hearts for transplants. But let me repeat... I suggest capacity for meaningful thought as the threshold (not as a constant test to determine if you still qualify for personhood). Why would you find capacity for meaningful thought a poor threshold for entry into personhood? Really the only difference between our positions is that you want to declare the fetus a person when brain waves are present, but that is meaningless EEG noise at first (while the nervous system and the brain are still developing). I am just saying it is more logical to put the threshold at a point when there is the possibility of meaningful thought (which is in the third trimester). Reference Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. Before this point, any EEG signals are just noise as the foundation is being laid for the neurological systems, and movements are just the formation of reflexes and primitive instinct. One reason I object to the use of viability (i.e. heart and lung development) as the threshold is that the heart and the lungs have nothing to do with the capacity for self-aware personhood. We do not, after all, consider a person "gone" if he gets a heart transplant. That same "person" is still there (we could not say the same if a brain transplant ever happens). The other reason I object to people using viability as the threshold is that eventually somebody will manage to rescue a fetus at an earlier point (perhaps with new technology), and then pro-life advocates will start demanding that everybody is obligated to go to that extreme to rescue every fetus or embryo. We need a threshold that is logical and depends on development of the fetus (not the development of technology).
You act as if the woman had no say so as to having sex. Women are assumed, as we all are that lack of knowing the law is no excuse, to realize the child she bears is a different person. There is no logical purpose to claiming the unborn is no person. I don't buy that pregnancy injures the woman. My two former wives had children by me and never felt injured.
OK. Again, just for clarity, I thought you were trying to establish that it was commonly believed. This is getting a little bit beyond the topic, so I won't go too far into, but Jewish law didn't have as significant an impact on the western world as Roman traditions did. The two were merged, but the ways of the Jews weren't held up that much, especially given the longstanding European discrimination against the Jews (which ran pretty strong into the 20th century). I was thinking more of the Roman traditions, and the Roman world was governed by a very different viewpoint. To them, it wasn't important whether or not it was a life, but whether or not it was a desired life. It was similar in much of Greece. Abortion was used in the ancient world, but (in Roman society) it was acceptable (pre and post birth) if the patriarch wished it (the patriarch had full authority over his family), and was commonly used to reject undesired traits (particularly in Sparta). I don't really care to provide an ancient source that says that life starts at conception (it's a belief I reject, so idk why I'd provide historical basis for it), but they did believe (we can deduce, at least) that life began before birth. Basically when the woman started to "show", it was understood that there was a human life developing. To cause a woman to have a miscarriage through violence (namely hitting a pregnant woman in the stomach) was a crime for which the patriach was within his right to kill the offender. Again, Roman society was much different because they really did have a true patriarchy, but essentially then to kill an unwanted fetus was fine (if the right person did it), but to killed a wanted one was a serious crime. This, deductively, shows that they believed that life began before birth. I'm not going to suggest that ancient society was in wide agreement that the unborn were people, but there was fairly wide recognition of life before birth. Aristotle, for example, argued that abortion should sometimes be required, but only before it developed "sensation and life", "for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive." There are other cases, but the point is that ancient views were complicated, but that there was general agreement (as there is now) that human life begins prior to birth. No, not pretending. Look, a newborn isn't "just like" anybody who is an adult, there are a plethora of difference. But as far as legal protection of their life, we're not concerned with the plethora of differences, we're concerned with one thing - is it a human life? Again, I measure that by the start of human brain waves. This sounds like quibbling. I took it for granted that when I say "life" in regards to abortion, it would be understood that I was talking about "human life". As far as why human life is so special - that's a value premise on which society is generally agreed and which I don't feel the need to prove, because it is value-laden. You can't prove values, but if we start with the premise that we value (to narrow it) innocent human life, then we can go ahead. It was joke. Do you watch South Park? [video=youtube;RxocjZ01f2I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxocjZ01f2I[/video] But there's the thing - they can be declared brain dead, but they aren't declared to have lost personhood. If someone is brain dead, the family has the right to make medical decisions there, but if the person is brain dead and not human (or not "a person"), then for a random person to kill them would not be murder. But, legally, it is. The problem here is that someone can lose the capacity for meaningful thought and still be alive. If someone has lost this (say, in a coma) and I cause their vitals to cease functioning, then they die and it is murder. If someone is dead, then I can't cause their vitals to cease functioning, so I can't kill them - they are already dead. (might be some laws about disturbing the dead, but they wouldn't call it murder) Brain dead is more specific. It is the irreversible loss of brain function, including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life. That's a different scenario, because someone who is brain dead can't have a beating heart except by being on such equipment, and so brain dead makes one, per my definition, dead. But you can lose the capacity for meaningful thought and, if someone else causes your vital functions to cease, it can still be murder. Technically, brain dead means all the other vital functions cease without artificial support. There are two problems. 1) why would the threshold be a threshold only? The means by which we measure the start, end, and presence of life should be consistent. Because if we check for a given marker of life to see if someone is alive, then the absence of it should prove they are dead. For example, the shorthand people use is a heart beat. Check the pulse. Is it not there, but once was? They're dead. Is it there now? They're alive. Is it absent, and has it always been absent? They were never alive. 2) I reject "meaningful thought" (or "capacity for...") as the basis for personhood. I don't see any reason to use it. The thalamo-cortical complex provides consciousness, and you are right, it "begins to be in place" between the 24th and 28th week. But that doesn't mean it is operating, or that self-awareness begins at that point. It isn't fully functional yet. The form of your rationale is really no different at all than saying that, "the brain is the basis of self-awareness, and the brain starts to develop at x, so life should be declared to begin at x." I also reject viability, but just because it doesn't make sense as a principal. The idea is that, "if we remove this baby from the womb, it will soon die." So? By the same principle, if we stop assisting grandpa he will soon die, so - by the viability logic - grandpa is already dead the moment he needs help to survive. Or we reduce it to "life begins when the baby can survive out of the womb, because life begins when the baby can survive out of the womb, because life begins..." I stand by the belief that life begins when brain waves can be detected. Any objection about that basis (usually) amounts to some form of, "it isn't fully developed yet", which is moot (hence pre-frontal cortex point). Your objection is that the mere presence of (human) brain waves doesn't indicate human personhood, because the capacity for human thought is what indicates the start of human life - but then you run into problems with that because you're presuming capacity before it is realized (that is, we think it might be as early as x, so you say we should say life begins at x), and your measure is only the measure of the start of life, without any rationale for why it is the measure of the start of life only and can't be used as a measure of whether someone is living or dead.
once again, it's an order of argument. Any discussion of when abortion should be illegal is predicated on the start of human life. lol, just how exactly do you suggest it is that the unborn impose themselves on the female's autonomy? The female creates the unborn. It's as if we had the capacity to create humans in a lab, and when you (the scientist) create a human, you kill it because it was trespassing by coming to life as a direct result of your action. ^_-
So you're of the opinion that if all people who believe abortion should be illegal, instead didn't believe that the unborn were human, then they would all still think abortion should be illegal. You've fundamentally misunderstood the entire abortion debate.
On history: I think we are talking about two different things. I am saying historically (e.g. Jewish law) the newborn gained "personhood" at the moment of birth, and you are saying historically (e.g. Aristotle) the unborn were considered to be "alive" sometime before birth. I am more concerned about the beginning of "personhood." On capacity for self-awareness (versus actual self-awareness): You said "But as far as legal protection of their life, we're not concerned with the plethora of differences, we're concerned with one thing - is it a human life? Again, I measure that by the start of human brain waves." I would agree with you if we did not have evidence from medical science that these are just "background noise" and the brain is not capable of thought until sometime in the third trimester. Why should we consider it a "person" as soon as brain waves are emitted? On the comparison of "brain dead" to end of personhood: You said "But there's the thing - they can be declared brain dead, but they aren't declared to have lost personhood. If someone is brain dead, the family has the right to make medical decisions there, but if the person is brain dead and not human (or not "a person"), then for a random person to kill them would not be murder. But, legally, it is." After brain death the "person" is effectively gone, otherwise nobody would be legally allowed to remove the heart. On capacity for meaningful thought as a threshold: You claim "There are two problems. 1) why would the threshold be a threshold only?" First of all I stated it as a threshold and there are good reasons (as you suggested here) NOT to use it as anything more than the threshold for the beginning of personhood. What is your evidence that every threshold for entry must universally be used as a continuous measure to maintain membership? You also said "2) I reject "meaningful thought" (or "capacity for...") as the basis for personhood. I don't see any reason to use it." That is not exactly a strong argument. You have suggested point "w" (when brain waves first appear) as the better threshold and I have suggested point "x" (when the brain has developed the capacity for meaningful thought). What is your reasoning for saying point "w" is a better threshold than point "x" ? On use of the thalamo-cortical development: You said "But that doesn't mean it is operating, or that self-awareness begins at that point. It isn't fully functional yet." I agree it is probably not self-aware at that point, but we can be confident that it could not possibly be self-aware before that point. That would give the fetus the "benefit of the doubt" as soon as there was the possibility of meaningful thought without demanding an IQ test to have it prove that it has meaningful thought. Why would you want to declare it a "person" when you know it has not yet become capable of meaningful thought? In your summary, you stated: I stand by the belief that life begins when brain waves can be detected. Any objection about that basis (usually) amounts to some form of, "it isn't fully developed yet", which is moot (hence pre-frontal cortex point). Your objection is that the mere presence of (human) brain waves doesn't indicate human personhood, because the capacity for human thought is what indicates the start of human life - but then you run into problems with that because you're presuming capacity before it is realized (that is, we think it might be as early as x, so you say we should say life begins at x), and your measure is only the measure of the start of life, without any rationale for why it is the measure of the start of life only and can't be used as a measure of whether someone is living or dead. I assume you mean "personhood" begins when brain waves can be detected (not "life" begins when brain waves can be detected). If that is the case, we are both saying it "is not developed enough yet" to meet the threshold conditions for personhood. You are presuming capacity for (something?) at point "w" (when brain waves begin) and I am presuming capacity for meaningful thought at point "x" (when the thalamo-cortical complex can first provide consciousness). I can justify point "x" based on medical science. What is your justification for point "w" and what capacity are you assuming the fetus to have when brain waves are first detected?
""""Many pro-lifers protest outside clinics, photograph women, wait for teens in the court houses, protest outside the doctor's landlords kid's school, etc. These are evil people.""" Amen to that !!
You act as if a woman consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy. Assuming that is assuming that a woman deserves to be punished by an unwanted pregnancy because she consented to sex. Pregnancy or children should not be a punishment, therefore women should not be forced by law to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Women assume, most of them, that a fetus is not a person until late in gestation, well past the point when most abortions happen. Just because your wives, and I don't care if you had ten of them, didn't complain about the injuries to their bodies doesn't mean they didn't happen. All pregnancies cause injuries like hemorrhoids, varicose veins, saggy skin, saggy breasts, etc. Women are willing to endure those injuries when the pregnancy is wanted, but they still exist.
One question. As an adult, how many ways does a woman have to avoid getting pregnant. If she has no idea, she needs to keep her panties on.
Well if that's what you were trying to get to with the Jewish bit, that's separate. The Jewish quote you used said that human life began at birth, but that the soul exists in the child in the womb. In religion, a soul is pretty much personhood. The problem here isn't a factual disagreement, but a value disagreement, and I think we've hit a point of fundamental disagreement here. From what you've said, it sounds like you would agree that at the point when a fetus has a human heart and human brain waves it is human, but lacks the (capacity for) self-awareness that you think is of value in humans. By contrast, I value that they are humans, and at the point where a fetus develops a human brain, the final function by the absence of which we declare there is no life, I consider it to have become a human, and therefore worthy of the protections that we afford to humans. Correct. I misused the term. What I meant is that someone can lose the higher cognitive brain function (anything which can be considered "self-aware) but still have a brain that fulfills the essential involuntary functions of a brain, and so maintains the heart beat, etc. 1) I've given my reason why the measure of the start of human life should be a measure for life at any point. The reason is quite simple: if we can determine someone to be dead by the absence of certain functions, then we should be able to declare them alive by the presence of certain functions. If you wish to say that killing someone who has lost higher cognitive brain functions isn't murder, then I'll recognize your position as consistent, but I still would object to it. (btw, I value consistency very highly haha) 2) It's that value difference. You value human life, seemingly, only for its higher cognitive functions. I value human life itself. btw, you haven't given any substantive reason for why we should value the capacity for higher cognitive function - I assume that this is something you've taken for granted as a value judgement. I think the "capacity" argument makes it more comfortable, but only because actual self-awareness doesn't come for a while after birth. If we're to go by capacity for self-awareness, then why not just go by the earliest proof of substantial self-awareness? Yes, but I think we're talking past each other here, because I'm using "personhood" as "legal personhood". The first is hairy and subjective, the second is... easily changed, but at least less subjective (ideally). I'm not presuming capacity for anything - I believe that, at point w, the unborn becomes a human and therefore is deserving of protection of human rights (namely the right to life). This is that value difference I was talking about. No, you're justifying point x based on an undefended value judgement. Medical science definitely agrees with me - a human heart and brain are present at point w. Medical science doesn't refute my position. Your values are different than mine. I think this has been productive, but we're not going to change each other's minds because our fundamental disagreement is a value judgement that we each have basically taken for granted.
You act as if a man consenting to sex is consenting to fatherhood. Assuming that is assuming that a man deserves to be punished by becoming responsible for a child he never wanted just because he consented to sex. Fatherhood should not be a punishment, therefore men should not be forced by law to be in any way responsible for kids that they sired but didn't want to be born. I'm not saying the above, in italics, to mock you in any way (I basically agree with you), but to point out two things: 1) the double standard often employed, and 2) the impracticality of such a position. I think both statements, as a matter of principle, are fair. And they both express the same choice in parenting, but to employ one and not the other is unfair [violates the principles of gender equality], but to employ both is impractical. So whether to carry a fetus to term is a choice, since it is not a person until late in gestation. Before it is a person, should a father get a choice? Or does a man, by consenting to sex, consent to becoming a father?
Of course she does . .however, consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. Explain how consenting to one act by one person can be seen as consenting to another act by another person please. Knowing the law isn't relevant, no one can be forced to allow another person to use their body without consent. Insisting that the unborn are individual separate persons means legally that it must gain individual and separate consent to impose pregnancy onto the female. There is, but I don't claim it is not. I really couldn't careless what you buy or not, the medical facts are plain EVERY pregnancy causes injuries to females.
nope, the start of human life is irrelevant to abortion. Again irrelevant, under self-defence laws you can defend yourself against even your own children if they injure you without consent, even though, as you say, they were created by you .. or are you saying that birth somehow changes things? BTW a female does not create the unborn, please learn some biology.
No, pro-lifers are under an illusion that deeming the unborn as persons (everyone knows they are human) will result in a banning of, at least, elective abortion, which is nothing more than a fantasy. They also forget or wilfully ignore the fact that as a person the unborn not only gain protections, but also must abide by the same restrictions all other persons have to abide by, one of those restrictions is that no person can use another persons body without consent, and as an individual separate person the unborn MUST gain individual, separate consent from the female to impose pregnancy onto her, as it is the unborn that instigates and maintains the pregnancy condition .. in fact it is the ONLY entity that can turn a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one. The assumption by pro-lifers is that by consenting to sex the female also consents to pregnancy which is a load of crap, at best it could be said that by consenting to sex she has given implied or informed consent to pregnancy .. however, implied or informed consent is only valid until the person, by word or action, explicitly says "no", once that happens implied or informed consent becomes moot. Once that happens the female has every right to use what ever means possible to stop the unborn from injuring her without her consent and the state under the equal protection clause has a duty to aid her in doing so. Neither does it matter that the unborn have no intent to injure her, the law recognises that involuntary actions can and do cause injuries to others, and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. As the Model Penal Code notes, "People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem." - Source : Model Penal Code - Page 197 and even though the unborn cannot be held legally accountable for their involuntary actions that in no way diminishes the right of the female to defend herself against them, thus the unborns behaviour falls into that category of action in which the law assigns objective fault even without the presence of conscious intention. In this sense, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behaviour is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213 The portraying of the fetus as any type of actor, even an incompetent one, may offend those who see pregnancy as merely a set of biological processes more akin to other kinds of Physiological processes, yet this is exactly how the court has defined pregnancy. Recognition of the fertilized ovum as an incompetent actor who makes a woman pregnant opens the door to a new way of evaluation the legal significance of what the fetus does when it imposes even a medically normal pregnancy on a woman, to the degree that the fetus shares the attributes of a person, its imposition of normal pregnancy against a woman's will is an invasion of her right to be let alone from other private entities. The unborn acquires no entitlement to intrude on a woman simply because it lacks the mens rea to make it criminally responsible for what it does. We must remember the condition of pregnancy serves the immediate survival needs of the fetus, not the woman. It is the fetus whose development and continued existence depends on keeping the woman pregnant. While born people may wish to exercise the option to continue their presence in the form of offspring genetically and socially connected to them, the very fact they are born signifies that their own immediate lives do not require the condition of pregnancy to sustain them. By contrast, the fetus does not merely intrude upon a woman's body as an incompetent actor but as one who directly and specifically benefits from taking her body.
No she doesn't. Women can take their panties off and have sex when and how they want....and how often they want ...and they don't need to use birth control at all and they don't need your permission or anybody's permission and they can have all the abortions they want and YOU can't do one damn thing about it . And that's exactly the way it is and the way it should be
One question .. how is this relevant? You do know that no person is under any obligation to use contraception, neither are they under any obligation to allow their body to be used by another entity, regardless of how that offends your morality.
You're quite right that to apply the same legal requirements is impractical. That is because the legal system cannot make the reproduction process "fair." A woman has the burden of gestation and birth and risk so she is entitled to an "extra" choice, that is because it affects her body and her life in a major way. Men, OTOH, can only be required to write a check. They are not ever required to act as fathers providing caregiving and nurturing. When a man feels strongly opposed to fathering a child that has been mistakenly conceived, I would prefer that a woman honor his feelings and not bear that child, but we cannot require that without massive interference with her religious beliefs and conscience. Men must be educated to take more responsibility for birth control, and with the development of such products as vasalgel, that should be easier.
What you are saying is that if she failed to keep her panties on, she should be punished. You cannot get beyond your simple belief that a woman should be punished for choosing to have sex. It would be good if you could get beyond the idea that children can be punishment for wayward women. It would be even better if you could get beyond the idea that you should determine which women are wayward.
Ya, life is so unfair! Men don't get to have periods and gynecological problems and birth control problems and pregnancy problems and child birth problems and DAmn, they don't even have to be in a hospital to have a baby! How UNFAIR for men.... OK, the silly whining and ridiculous crap about gender equality in reproduction has been thoroughly mocked so exactly HOW do you propose the "father" gets a choice? Force the women to have a kid or FORCE a woman to have an abortion? Sign away his rights to the kid? Fine, but in that cool little contract there's the clause that says if he has ANY contact EVER with that kid he goes to jail....or pays the person who took care of the kid $ 500,000...the cost of raising the kid and sending her to college...THAT would be equal
Both prohibition and the war on drugs are laws based upon morality. They failed because they attempted to change behavior to suit the "morals" of those demanding the legislation. The reality is that We the People should never legislate behavior unless it causes harm to others. Someone can drink themselves to death and as long as no one else is harmed that is their right. Ditto for abusing drugs. It is the drug dealers and those who sell alcohol to minors who are causing harm and who need to be punished under the law. The harm done to society as a whole by trying to legislate the "morality" of prohibition and the war on drugs far exceeds the harm that is done by those who drink or use drugs to excess. In both instances those "morality" laws have caused unnecessary increases in crime and violence. Assumes facts not in evidence. Because it was moralists who pushed for prohibition, the war on drugs and banning gay marriage. There is a pattern here. DOMA was not an exception. It was par for the moralist course. There is a distinct difference between what We the People as a whole decide is right and wrong versus what a subset of moralists consider to be right and wrong. Laws that are constitutional, meaning that they don't infringe upon individual rights, are universally agreed upon. Anti-abortion laws infringe upon individual rights.
What law are you citing? Surely you have law on your side so you can explain which law you are using?
No, I am saying given she has birth control, her getting pregnant is an act she permits. Several of you allege the woman gets injured. But you never mention she gets injured with an abortion. Double standard as I see this. I never so much consider her child as a form of punishment. I have no idea why you see it as punishment.
Your side and you thankfully are a tiny minority, know very well the female has plenty of BC options. She is responsible for her own body. If she gets pregnant, she did so probably on purpose. - - - Updated - - - Your text tells me that you want it both ways. You want her to risk pregnancy provided she has the abortion. Abortion is not free. And it injures her body. Cite the law on the books you are using for your conclusions. It is so strange I never heard of such laws. - - - Updated - - - I never said a word of that so I am still puzzled why you allege I told you that.
I'm honestly satisfied with this response. :/ The only thing that I'd note is that child support against one's will is no small thing. It's generally 20% of your income (I think this is usually post-tax), and that is a lot. When you take a fifth of someone's pay, you are essentially owning a fifth of their time worked. When you put it together, you're requiring more of the man's active time (work hours) than a pregnant woman has between conception and birth (assuming a 40hr work week - it is more or less, depending on how his schedule differs from the norm). I don't think that's any small thing to shrug off, and I think that the burden placed by requiring a fifth of someone's income for 20yrs is greater than the burden of carry a child to term. This is one of those places where I think MRAs are quite right - this is a grossly unequal situation, where if a man wants the child (this is at the point where they find out they're pregnant) but the mother doesn't then he has no parental rights to that child, but if she wants the child and he doesn't then he is obligated to be a father for the rest of his life and pay 20% of his income (this varies but is the norm, from what I've heard - I've heard some more extreme cases where it was 37.5%). And I don't think I can accept where many modern feminists say that that state of affairs between them and their rights is fair - it just isn't fair, there's a gross imbalance there, but practicing equality in this regard just isn't practical.
