Why killing a fetus is fine.

Every arbitrary threshold to "personhood" presented by the abortion promoters has been shot down in flames
:

 

Abstinence is the only fool-proof means of contraception.

Surely you don't believe couples should refrain from having sex until they're willing to have a child?

 

Without getting inappropriately graphic here, there are ways to have sex that do not run the risk of pregnancy.

 

There are 69 ways.

 

By this logic it is perfectly ok to kill a mentally invalid person, such as one suffering from down-syndrome. I'm am absolutely horrified that anyone would ever consider this a justification for abortion.

Interesting how you refer to "killing" rather than aborting the fetus. It appears you have subconsciously accepted that abortion is an act murder before hearing anyone try to sway you.

You admitted above that abortion is equivalent to killing and thus murder. So, why would it be more ethical for women in third world countries to abort their fetus's? Are non-western babies worth less?

You don't raise a fetus. If it's born, it's a baby. If you don't understand this distinction, you should not create a thread in an abortion sub-forum.

You assume a "lifer," as you say, disagrees with you. Your post is so abhorrent that it is not difficult for one who is for abortion rights to reject it.

 

I have to admit that was pretty d*mn funny.

 

Correct, early childhood (for a couple of months) does not have these qualities either, hence technically infanticide is acceptable, but I dont see why anyone would employ such a means.

A person (so a child that has consciousness and sense of self awareness) has an interest in its existence. In a state of coma, if there were no possibility of them coming too, killing them would be acceptable, but if there were the possibility (which is most all of the time) it wouldn't be acceptable because the child, or in this case any person in the situation, their interest in being alive is infringed upon in a manner that would be more induce to harm than good. Killing them at that point in time would, in an of itself, not be bad, but the fact they have preexisting interests, and quite often a life - family, job etc, means keeping them alive in the prospect of them regaining consciousness means it would garner more utility to keep them alive.

They are one in the same as they are based on the same principle of utility.

Indeed, however I would assume most women do not have an avenue to adoption, which they might take.

Thanks for that. I might make a thread about this idea.

Yes and for the simple reason - some may wish to utilize the possibility of life.

If it is a question of innocence, then they are still hypocrites for not extending such rights to animals in the same manner.

Correct. Most animals have consciousness, like humans, meaning they have an interest in their existence unlike a fetus but similar to a grown human. However it is worth noting I am not a vegetarian or again eating meat, on grounds I cna also explain in line with utilitarian principle - however that being said I wont eat meat from certain places.

So a boy that masturbates commits a million counts of murder?

Well as you are well aware, I support abortion on different grounds.

 

Where did that happen? Also, it isn't arbitrary. The consciousness of beings can be studied and determined, and has been amongst humans and most animals.

 

WRONG (in part). The cognitive ability of people with down-syndrome varies. Most have self awareness and consciousness, hence the grounds for their being kept alive is very much present. In some, where cognitive ability is so poor they have no concept of themselves, those around them, or basically of anything aside from pain, then yes killing them would be justified, and I'm quite sure those involved would say the same.

How are you horrified by it?

WRONG AGAIN. Murder is merely illegal killing of another person. No, sure, we can apply murder on ethical grounds, however that being said, abortion is not murder for the reasons I have stated. If it were, I would say 'murder the fetus', but it isnt murder, its killing. and in the case of abortion, killing a fetus is totally acceptable. Yes I accepted this fact, just as you most likely accepted the fact killing people in war or in self defene was not murder rather just killing in the same way.

WRONG. Killing DOES NOT equal murder. Killing a fetus IS abortion. NO ONE is denying that.

No, in all situations, abortion is acceptable.

Connect the dots, you know what I meant.

Why would anyone reject it? On what grounds can they reject it? Yes, many common pro-choice arguments are not based on any justifiable principle in the same way lifer's principle isnt. The principle I am maintaining here, which is increasingly common and part of the basis for the rest, I have found, cannot be refuted. Although if you'd like to try, by all means go ahead.

 

Alright, so basically you have 2 checkpoints in determining whether or not someone has a right to life:
1.) The being must have superior intelligence
2.) The being must be aware
The exception to #2 is if the being has a past and a future
Is this correct?

If so, may I ask how intelligent the being must be in order to have a right to life?

The pro-life position is hardly hypocritical since their checkpoints simply differ from yours. They think someone has a right to life if:
1.) The being is human
2.) The human being is innocent
(Note: this isn't to say that they do not think any other being has a right to life.)

The position of favoring either one of the checkpoint systems is not hypocritical, but the case can be made that one of the systems is superior to the other by applying them to any given hypothetical situation.

The opposite of what I'm saying. Like I've said, I think killing zygotes should be legal.

 

No, those involved would not say the same. From the cold, clinical nature of this lovely bit, I have an inkling you have never been exposed to the kinds of people we are talking about; people mentally handicapped so much that they cannot display self-awareness. It's very easy to talk about killing people you have never seen or interacted with. After all, they're just another statistic, right?

I hate to Godwin the thread, but this is the exact same path the Holocaust started down; the killing of mental invalids.

The nonchalant way you toss around the word "kill" needed a jolt. There's your jolt. On the subject, though, murder is killing that the law finds reprehensible. What if the law changed? What if abortion became murder? Don't try to hide behind words; NO ONE is denying that abortion is killing life.

Even when the fetus could have survived outside of the womb as a baby? I don't understand why a baby 24 hours before birth is any less human than 24 hours after birth.

Your "principle" is too broad, broad enough that it can apply to murdering adults that are not self-aware. Yes, I said it. MURDER. We have laws protecting people who are mentally invalid, laws that your argument completely ignores.

 

wtf? No, just consciousness and personhood in the way I described - most beings have this.

No self awareness incorporates concepts of past present and future and is entirely linked to the description of personhood above.

Self awareness a and all the other attributes I already described that create personhood.

So they are saiyng humans are superior to other animals? On what basis?

Supporting the latter is, as I cna further elaborate on.

Yes, but even more easily by actually investigating the basis for each. Either way, the former succeeds the latter fails.

Oh, ok I see. Oh, why? You said the criteria for the right to life is 'human' - sperm cells are human, and so is a zygote, so why are you now contradicting your own criteria? Similarly if you are saying it has to be a human being, then that would also be a zygote, would it not?

 

I have.

Like I said, most have consciousness. The chances are almost all of those you knew met this criteria.

Not at all, they are human beings.

LOL Well at least you know Godwin's law. I dont see how my philosophy can justify Nazism, in fact it invalidates it. Just because your are disabled or invalid does not mean you don't have a right to life. Nazis killed people on the basis of lack of productivity and of being part of the 'superior race' - these concepts have absolutely no basis in utilitarian thought.

Don't try to hide behind words; NO ONE is denying that abortion is killing life.
Then define murder. There are many forms of killing other people that are not murder. Dont mention murder if you dont want to get entangled with concepts of the law. Just refer to what it is outside of the law - killing. We are discussing ethics, not law here. Besides I already mentioned murder as being possible to be used to mean 'immoral killing' but then you'd have to show how killing a fetus is immoral before calling it murder.

Yes.

It isnt.

How so?

Yes, but I have already covered this multiple times above. See here for my reply to that question.

But we are not discussing law here, were are discussing ethics.

 

You said killing a pig over an infant is worse if the pig has a greater intelligence to the infant, so I thought it was implied that intelligence is part of your criteria, but apparently it is not. Basically, a being has a right to life if (s)he has "preexisting interests, and quite often a life - family, job, etc."?

Not necessarily. Like I said, this position doesn't necessarily mean that they think humans deserve a right to life while other animals don't. Of course, there are plenty of pro-lifers who believe exactly this.

There is no real "failing" or "succeeding" since they are both viewpoints of morality -- a concept that is not a simple black or white.

Yes, a zygote is a human being, but I never said that my criteria was that all human beings deserve a right to life. I said the pro-life position is that all innocent human beings deserve a right to life. I believe human beings who are depriving someone else's rights can have their life taken (e.g., if someone breaks into my house, I should be able to shoot this man). I also believe human beings who don't know they exist, never have known they exist, nor have or had any feelings, emotions, awareness, or even brain activity should not be uphold so greatly at the expense of the killing of many aware babies.

 

No, not at all. I said killing a pig over an infant would be acceptable since the pig has consciousness self aware; ie personhood, where as the fetus doesn't. 'Intelligence' is misleading and NOT my argument.

Yes in the case of someone in a coma, this would be considered.

So, you believe animals have a right to life? Otherwise you would be a hypocrite, right?

Sure, it isn't black or white, but there is truth in it - one is true the other isn't.

I see.

On what grounds?

Which is essentially the view I have held this whole time.

What do you mean by this?

 

Who are you to dictate what kinds of special needs people I have interacted with? I can tell you I and most others with any kind of moral system would try to stop the murder of, say, a nine year old boy that does not fit your criteria. It is murder; killing that is not condoned under the law. My point in using the word murder is that if the law shifts to protect the unborn child, abortion would become murder. I am not advocating that at all, but it needs to be said. Would you still be comfortable with this ethical stance if it became even more illegal than it is now?

 

The longer a discussion like this goes on, the more apparent it becomes that leftists want to play god. They want to decide who lives and dies, and want to be protected from prosecution for intentionally killing those they deem unworthy of life. It is cosnsitent with their approach to govt in general. The guiding principle seems to be, " well the public is too stupid to know what is good for them so we must make their decisions for them". Ironically this latest crop has taken it one step further and passed the failed "stimulus" bill and the so called "health care reform" act without even knowing themselves what the bills actually said. They didn't read them and even admit that fact!
So, this begs the question, who is actually in the know about what our govt is doing in general, and with our tax dollars?

 

So it is awareness which is your criteria? Wouldn't that mean pigs should have equal rights?

How would it make me a hypocrite? The pro-life position is not hypocritical since it is simply stating that all innocent human beings have a right to life. Whether or not that pro-lifer believes certain animals have a right to life as well is not inconsistent with the pro-life position at all. Personally, I think certain animals have a right to life while others don't, but I certainly don't think the punishment for killing an animal should be as nearly as bad as the punishment for killing a child.

That would be if one side had a specific claim and the other had another. For example, the zygote is a human being -- that's the truth and the other standpoints are not the truth. However, to say that a zygote has or does not have a right to life is not the truth or not the truth, but is simply different viewpoints.

Self-defense... different discussion, kind of.

Not entirely because you're saying that it's okay to kill a baby that was aware. As long as the baby is not aware now and has never really experienced life to its fullest, it's justifiable to kill it, even if it is a newborn infant. I, on the other hand, believe a human being has a right to life when it becomes aware and that right to life cannot be taken away (unless it grows up and it's a means of self-defense).

Like I've explained before, legalizing early-term abortions will encourage women to get their abortions very early on, versus an outright ban on abortion would leave women who want to get an abortion no choice but to go on the black market, which would result in more late-term abortions.

 

All thresholds anyone has posted so far in support of abortion are arbitrary. What is it about "awareness" that suddenly makes an entity a human being?

 

You have asked a good question. " I think therfor I am" would be one answer

Another question would be "what makes an entity a human" as opposed to a cow or human cell.

 

Very simple to answer. "Human" is an animal Genus or species. It is scientificallt defined and that definition does not include cows.

There is no distinction between a "human" ", a human being", and a l"iving human". Any attempt at drawing distinctions between these indicates the need to skew reality to support ones position.

You know, like claiming a young ape can grow into a human being.

 

Right ... and the reason a cow is not in the catagory "homo sapien" is because it does not have the traits required by the scientific definition.

Neither does a zygote.

Is a dead person not a human ?

Dead people have rights .. "grave desecration is a crime" .. but not the same rights as living people.

Can you not distinguish between a dead and living person?

 

WRONG!!!!!

A zygote actually is a Homo Sapien, therefore it is obvious that a zygote has the charcteristics.

You have said before that a zygote is "human" , well by its very definition that means it is homo sapien.
You are contradicting yourself again.

Answer this, can one species become another species as it grows? If you say yes, an explanation is required.

And not "apes can grow into humans" again.

 

A better question that you have always dodged is what other than a dictionary definition makes a human being? What are the characteristics that define a being as a human being?

 

At which stage of development? It changes (obviously) with stages of development.

A better question is what is it about age that makes an entity suddenly a human being at a certain age, but not before?