I can only do so to my satisfaction as my moral code is relative to me and has no power nor authority beyond myself. Do you believe that the fetus survives the abortion? If not then your question seems strange to me.
If rape is an excuse for abortion, and no rape means abortion is not allowed, there might be women who will falsely accuse a guy of rape just so they can have an abortion. At minimum the police will want a sample of the fetal DNA so they can track down the guy. That is scary, and one good reason to let women have an abortion if they want one.
If I were to say, "a basketball and soccerball are both similar in that they are both round, which makes them both balls," you might point out all the differences. They're made of different materials, have different bounce, are used in different ways, have different colors, different patterns, but none of that would disprove that they are both balls. None of those differences would disprove the fundamental statement that both are round. It's quite different than that, because how did the fetus become in need of saving? If someone were simply dying in the street and you didn't save them, then that would be cruel. But if you took someone by the arm, swung them over a ledge (while still holding onto them), and then ceased to hold on, that'd be a crime. Because while you didn't save them from the fall, you are the one that put them in the position of needing saving. Likewise, with the fetus, while it is, roughly, the woman saving the fetus by not aborting it, it isn't as if she was just walking down the street and happened to have a fetus spontaneously form in her womb. Again, it is a difference but not a key one, for the reasons I already mentioned to RandomObserver. That there is a difference doesn't nullify an analogy, because it is merely a difference and fails to speak to the key aspect. But what the key aspect is, at this point, merely comes down to a value judgement, as I discussed with RandomObserver.
Not to mention what TOTAL HYPOCRITS Anti-Choicers are when they say they'd "allow" abortion in the case of rape. They are blaming that "innocent life" for the rape ! An abortion of a fetus brought about by rape is EXACTLY THE SAME as an abortion brought about through consensual sex....so, what that PROVES is that Anti-Choicers want to punish women for having consensual sex by forcing them to stay pregnant...
When you are comparing a fetus which has never had the capacity to entertain a single self-aware thought, and a person who has already crossed that threshold, it is a key difference. Then you are trying to play golf with a basketball... after all they are both round.
If a man kills his 14yo boy in a fight, but during the trial it comes out that the boy was conceived as a result of rape, do we drop the murder charges? Is a child born to a rapist less human? If the answer is not in the affirmative, then there is no legitimate reason to differentiate between the life of a child conceived in rape or consensual sex. A final note about the rape excuse - imagine a woman rapes a man and conceives. Is that, then, a fair case for the man to demand that the child be aborted?
it is only a key difference if we are of the mind that human rights (including the right to life) begin only at the moment of self-awareness and not before. You're of that mind (roughly), I am not. We already covered this, it is a value difference - restating your value judgements doesn't make them anyone else's.
^_- Is this one of those kinds of arguments where you say that no one can choose to kill another person with a knife, only to plunge the knife into their flesh?
Desperation drives you to silly suggestions......Hey, your side does say that a woman can't get pregnant if it's REALLY rape so no man could either... You are correct though, there is NO difference between an abortion due to rape or an abortion due to consensual sex AND Anti-Choicers who want to allow for abortion in the case of rape expose their agenda of punishing women for having consensual sex. You however, seem to be of the "force the woman to be "raped " the rest of her life by forcing her to have her rapist's baby" fans ...which is one of the cruelest things I've ever heard. Giving someone as vile as a rapist even more power and control of the woman he raped...sickening....(hmmm, power and control of women by rapists sounds so much like OTHERS who want power and control over women to FORCE them to give birth....) <MOD EDIT - Removed Flamebait>
Then you must realize that only those who accept your definition of personhood will agree that an embryo and person in a coma are the same thing. And you completely dodged the difference PopulistMadison pointed out (that one has a history of personhood, with memories and personality already bound to that body). Let me guess "that does not matter" right? Evidence that that is not a key difference? Still waiting for that.
And only those who accept your position that personhood begins at the point when a fetus has the potential of self-awareness will concur with all of your resulting conclusions. Yes, as I already pointed out multiple times at this point, this comes down not to a matter of fact or rhetoric, but a value judgement. You don't value human life, you value self-awareness, and think that the law should protect only human life which is self-aware. I by contrast value the human life itself. This is a value difference. I didn't dodge anything, you missed the point. As I have already pointed out, more than once now, that difference is only important if you're of the mind that the only human life worthy of legal rights are those which have reached the "capacity" for self-awareness, as defined by RandomObserver.
Obviously you agree that brain function is key (otherwise you would not be using brain waves as your threshold). I presented evidence (Scientific American) that those brain waves are meaningless until the last month or so of pregnancy. Your argument is just another pro-life "It has 10 toes so it must be a person" argument (or it is round so it must be a golf ball) unless you can offer some evidence to explain why brain waves would make it a person (but brain waves do not make dogs and cats persons). A brain capable of self-awareness does distinguish us from all of the other creatures, so I submit that it is a better threshold than primitive reflexes and brain waves. Do you have any evidence (besides "but it is not the right value system")?
You need to read my post more carefully. I am ardently pro choice. Part of the reason (aside from the fact that calling a single human cell (at conception) a living human is retarded from both a rational, philosphical and scientific perspective) is that I am a ardent supporter of individual rights and freedoms " Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness" Being in favor of "liberty" is not just being in favor of liberty one agrees with. Everyone is for freedom for things they agree with. Just as I am in favor of a woman's right to her own body, life/liberty - I am also in favor of the same rights for men. The courts feel otherwise as they have no problem infringing on the liberty of men on the basis a unilateral choice made by a woman. This is what my previous post was discussing.
I apologize for misrepresenting your view. I just noticed that post and it reminded me of a series of posts I had read on another topic. I neglected to chase your thread to see what you were actually talking about. I agree with you about liberty. If we want freedom to live according to our own religion, or personal conscience, we have to allow others to do the same. The court system is unbalanced with respect to child support (so I was only half kidding about some way to have men register their intentions and have that respected by the government).
Men do have the same rights as women, although their reproductive rights are different as they do not become pregnant. Men cannot be given the right to have an abortion, just as women cannot be given the right to have a vasectomy. You want men to have more rights than women. You want men to be able to legally abandon their born children.
I explained in plain language more than once why, and it is not for the reason you say it is. Meaningless in regards to your threshold only 1) you seem to be confused by the word "person" means. You're making a circular argument in which "person" means the point at which you think there is possibly a capacity for self awareness. I disagree - and, just for clarity here: Person: a human being regarded as an individual. The threshold at which the capacity for self-awareness possibly exists is nowhere in the definition of person. 2) The "round" example illustrated in formal logic how your argument was a fallacy. Is formal logic now just another pro-life thing? This is just factually untrue. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/self-awareness_not_unique/ You seem to be under the misapprehension that simply providing a source on the development on the portion of the brain which governs self-awareness proves that that is the point at which personhood begins. Yet, again, all it does is show that - if we apply your basis for personhood, then personhood begins at point x. The source itself provides no compelling reason to apply your interpretation, same as the sources I provided (hence "value judgement", because the fundamental disagreement here isn't over facts or logic, but value - you value life which is self-aware, I value human life). The word "person" means a human being regarded as an individual. The interpretation you've chosen to apply is merely the capacity for self-awareness, which animals have, and some humans (even ones regarded as individuals) lack. So you're not just arguing that your values are the right values, you're arguing that the dictionary itself wrong.
This is the exact form of the argument that, in a society which bans homosexual marriage, "heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights. They can each marry one person of the opposite sex. You want homosexuals to have more rights than heterosexuals." The form of the two arguments is equally valid or invalid - take your pick.
A raped man should escape child support obligations, but probably should not have a say in an abortion, unless he thinks she is a child molester and does not want his genes going through that. As for the 14 year old, it is not living inside the man and tied to him. They can go their separate ways. Now, if the 14 year old is not his, maybe he should escape child support there too, although 4 more years is not long to wait to save the teen from some emotional distress.
and as I have pointed out, that belief. has no bearing or relevance to the abortion debate .. if you disagree explain why it is relevant and how it effects the abortion debate.
The dictionary (as your example demonstrates) is incapable of defining an issue as complex as personhood. For example, "a human regarded as an individual" says anybody who does not regard the unborn as an individual is not aborting a person at all. We can look to history, but there has been no agreement throughout history. That is why many of us are pro-choice. Since (as you admitted in earlier posts) there is no clear evidence to tell us when the fetus is inhabited by a soul/personhood/individuality, the government should stay out of the decision and leave each woman to follow her own conscience (free from coercion from any religious fanatics who believe the entire country must follow their interpretation of personhood). Like I said, golf balls and basketballs are round but you cannot play golf with a basketball, so round-ness may not be the only meaningful parameter. This was in reference to my comment that our self-aware mind makes us unique. I have no disagreement with the article (I have suspected that for many years). We now know (again, thanks to modern science) that we are not the only animals capable of self-awareness. It makes you think twice before ordering veal (unless, in your value system only "human" life matters and torture of self-aware lower animals is of no concern). However, throughout history we did not know that other animals were self-aware, so that was the basis for our tradition that we, as humans, deserve some special treatment. I still think our brains are special, but since we share about 99% of our DNA with our close relatives the apes, maybe we should consider treating them more like persons instead of animals. At any rate, I would still distinguish between an ape fetus (before its brain was capable of self-awareness) and an ape individual (after the brain is capable of self-awareness). So do you agree that there is still a significant difference in the value of a human versus the value of any other animal (based on some qualify of our brain)? No, you continue to misunderstand my position. I value persons in coma as well (even if they show no immediate signs of self-awareness). Those bodies have been inhabited by an individual self-aware mind so they are still individual persons until the brain is no longer functional. I offer a threshold based on the earliest point when meaningful thought is possible to help people who are uncertain. Many people (unlike you) believe that our personhood (individuality, self-awareness, spirit, or soul) existed before conception and will persist long after death. It might be reassuring for those who are considering an abortion to know that our individuality, our self-awareness, cannot possibly inhabit any specific body until the last month or two of pregnancy. If you choose NOT to believe in a soul, or believe that it inhabits the developing body at an earlier point, I am pro-choice so I support your right to act on that believe in the case of your own pregnancy.
Interesting thought The point here is that the 14yo product-of-rape is no less human for it. Likewise, in the case of the unborn, if we determine that there is a certain point where we say abortion shall be illegal - let's go with the beginning of the third trimester (just for argument's sake, as if we had all agreed), then there is no reason why rape should be an exception there, because we have already said that it (the unborn) is human at that point. This is where many pro-lifers just start undermining their own arguments - if it is a human life worthy of protection, then the fact that it is the product of rape or incest doesn't make it any less human.
^_- It's relevant, because that believe is why we're even having the discussion. It is only because people believe that the unborn (at some point) are humans or "persons" that we are even having a debate.
No worries - happens to me sometimes too. I agree with you. If there is some agreement between a man and woman that they want to have a child the woman should be getting him to sign something (or some other kind of registration process) so that when the child is born the man can not back out of his agreement. Having a child is serious business, a serious financial and personal commitment, and should be taken seriously.
