Thread: Are lifers also against the morning after pill?

Originally Posted by prometeus

If you take into consideration that we as humans at least attempt to be compassionate beings on occasion, then it is not unreasonable to follow a line of reasoning along the notion of preventing suffering. If a being has no brain, an active one, then it experiences no suffering and that can be applied to a fetus too in the abortion debate.

Again, killing a coma victim produces no suffering.

One that maintains homeostasis.

Many adult humans are unable to maintain homeostasis.

Of course it is. Have you ever met an individual of our species that had no organs at all? And was it a living individual?

Zygotes are living individuals, yet they have no organs They are organized, living, independent systems of human life. What are they if not human organisms?

That is a simplistic if not naive argument without a point.

Why? If you're argument is that a zygote isn't a human being because it can't survive "on its own," neither can anybody. The only difference is what we require to survive.

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

You must consider what is required to be considered "individual."

What do you think that is? I think what's required is being an individual, living human organism.

I don't have a problem with you taking your morning after pill if it makes you feel better. AT that point, you really don't know if you're pregnant or not. And seeing as children are not a blessing to leftists, especially leftists who drop their drawers at a moment's notice, then sure. Go ahead and take the morning after pill. That will just mean less leftists in the long run, i'm hoping. Not to mention you're not replacing yourself.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

There is no practical difference between the mental faculty of a person who is in a coma or a person who is an embryo, in that they both lack will, reason, and consciousness. The former has brainwaves but of a differing type than a conscious person and ones that no more grant the faculties of will, reason, and consciousness than the lack of brainwaves of an embryo. So why should the presence of some sort of brainwave be the determining factor when one can have them and yet be just as passive and unconscious as a mindless object? Of course, the thoughtlessness of a coma is often transient, but so is the thoughtlessness of the embryonic stage.

Do abortion doctors perform tests on the fetus to determine the presence of brainwaves? Nope. And setting some general time limit based on a presumed average will not protect those minds that develop earlier on the bell curve.

Because there is a big difference between preventing the future appearance of the NEW mind never existing in the past (the first beginning of existence), and terminating "paused" mind of comatose person which existed in the past as a person, now exists in paused state and can REactivate. The mind (and memories) of the person is still there, encoded in the neural network.

Its the same difference as preventing the appearance of completely new persons (for example with contraception) vs. terminating already existing persons, or theoretically preventing medical resurrection of dead persons, if such technology becomes available.

Preventing first appearance of something which never existed is morally not the same terminating something which exists or preventing REappearance. We dont consider preventing reproduction as murder.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Again, killing a coma victim produces no suffering.

It produces suffering in his relatives, if such coma victim had a chance to recover.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

What do you think that is? I think what's required is being an individual, living human organism.

And you consider a single cell one eve though it does not have self sustaining life processes?

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Again, killing a coma victim produces no suffering

Of course it does to the loved ones? Who suffers in case of an abortion?

Many adult humans are unable to maintain homeostasis.

Yes, that are called dead people.

Zygotes are living individuals, yet they have no organs They are organized, living, independent systems of human life.

Independent you say? Why the need of a host then?

What are they if not human organisms?

In the early stages. the building block of the future human being.

Why? If you're argument is that a zygote isn't a human being because it can't survive "on its own," neither can anybody.

Then we are all dead, yet here we are maintaining our own life processes, which of course zygotes can not.

The only difference is what we require to survive.

Yea, like not needing the organs and body of someone. When was the last time you used the body of anyone to sustain your own life?

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

I'm defining it as a human organism

I am sorry, but that is not how it works, you do not get to define anything that the rest o society has to abide by and there are only VERY few possible exceptions to it and you do not qualify for any. You are not a dictator or supreme ruler, nor the highest authority in biology. Care to play again?

and I think it should be pretty clear what constitutes a human organism: a living member of the human species distinct from all other members of human species.

Indeed, yet you are willing to pervert that for self serving purposes.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

I'm defining it as a human organism, and I think it should be pretty clear what constitutes a human organism: a living member of the human species distinct from all other members of human species. It has unique, self-reproducing DNA and behaves as a unified, organized system developing seamlessly into a fully grown human adult.

You can define it this way, sure, but I agree that this isn't commonly what people mean when they use the term "human being". But let's go with this. So you define human being scientifically, based upon what genetics a particular microorganism has and what gene expressions are present.

So the question is why should we extend the philosophical construct of personhood to this entity?

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Because there is a big difference between preventing the future appearance of the NEW mind never existing in the past (the first beginning of existence), and terminating "paused" mind of comatose person which existed in the past as a person, now exists in paused state and can REactivate. The mind (and memories) of the person is still there, encoded in the neural network.

Again, what if he loses all his memories then?

Its the same difference as preventing the appearance of completely new persons (for example with contraception) vs. terminating already existing persons, or theoretically preventing medical resurrection of dead persons, if such technology becomes available.

Preventing first appearance of something which never existed is morally not the same terminating something which exists or preventing REappearance. We dont consider preventing reproduction as murder.

Sperms and eggs are not independent human organism, while fertilized eggs are. Fertilized eggs contain all the necessary information encoded (as you say) to be human minds. Thus, the basic foundation of the mind does exist, even though the elements of volition, sentience, etc, are not in appearance. Just as with the coma victim.

It produces suffering in his relatives, if such coma victim had a chance to recover.

Well, so do some abortions. There are many cases of women aborting fetuses against the wishes of the father. And what is coma victim has no friends or family?