My Question Which Keeps Getting Ignored...

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by TheHat, Mar 29, 2012.

  1. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Brainwaves appear at 20 weeks. Thats where the line should be drawn IMHO.

    http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
     
  2. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ha, brainwaves.

    You know what else has brainwaves?

    Dolphins..chimps..dogs..cats...

    And yet those creatures don't deserve rights.

    Now don't get me wrong; I don't think they should have rights simply because I don't wanna fund a massive police state that is needed to give them rights; but if they don't deserve rights, then only humans that have already been born deserve rights.
     
  3. Iolo

    Iolo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Traditionally human life starts at birth. I am a conservative in many ways, and believe it is silly to change such common-sense assumptions merely to serve extremist political ends amongst the peasantry.
     
    OKgrannie and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Never heard about animal rights? The fact that higher animals have brainwaves is the reason why laws against animal abuse are common, yet laws against plant abuse are an absurd notion.

    The presence of simple mind, well correlated with brainwaves, is a prerequisite for ANY rights. Once that is established, we may talk about additional factors such as species. Yet without this basic prerequisite, there can be no rights, irregardless of species. We dont give rights to things.
     
  5. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't support that either. It's economically draining to have all the utilitarian animal rights and environmentalist insanity that so many people want. I don't want people destroying MY economy that I participate in with their idiotic regulatory ideas. I won't let it happen either.

    Edit: the above is actually quite relevant because poverty and crime being lowered are both reasons why I support abortion..again, it's all consequentialist.
     
  6. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, on what exactly do you base your consequentialism then? How are good and bad consequences defined? Why is poverty bad, but animal abuse should be not? Both cause suffering in sentient creatures.

    And do you realise that utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, with positive consequences defined as those which increase wellbeing of sentient creatures?

    I am also a consequentialist (utilitarian) and thats why I support animal rights, and also sensible environmentalism, since not protecting the environment leads to negative consequences in the long term. Our wellbeing is dependent on it.
     
  7. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    humans >>>>> other animals 'cause I'm one, that's why.

    I >>> other humans, priority wise. I don't think I should be legally allowed to violate other, however, and that's not the logical conclusion here.
     
  8. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am also speciecist to some degree, I woudnt be only if I wanted to outlaw killing sentient animals just like human persons. But that does not mean causing unnecessary suffering to animals should be allowed. There is no resulting increase in human wellbeing if its unnecessary, so why not ban it? Noone is harmed, and suffering is decreased.

    Indeed. All persons should be equal before the law.
     
  9. sec

    sec Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    31,639
    Likes Received:
    7,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    including the innocent and vulnerable who need us the most
     
  10. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Indeed. Innocent and vulnerable persons should be protected.
     
  11. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,832
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If there's to be any middle ground in the debate, this is probably it.
     
  12. JP5

    JP5 Former Moderator Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    45,584
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Every single person posting in this thread was once a fetus and once a zygote, for that matter. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to that FACT.

    Think about it.
     
  13. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,832
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And everyone and everything was stardust before that. Does that make everything sacred?
     
    Blasphemer and (deleted member) like this.
  14. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If we were destroyed whilst zygotes, would we care?
     
  15. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My wife and I have two children. Using birth control, we have avoided having any more than that.

    We think this was a good thing: we are able to devote more resources and attention to each child, enabling them to better reach their full potential. It also has allowed *us* to better reach our own potential, because we're not consumed by raising a huge family.

    We are happier; our children are happier. We are unlikely to ever become a burden on society. Our children have enough to eat and enough clothes to wear. We can afford to give them excellent educational opportunities. We don't have to live in a giant house. We can drive smaller cars.

    Did we murder the dozens of children we might have had if we didn't use birth control? Should we be compelled to have more children, at the expense of our happiness, our finances, our two children's happiness, and the rest of society?

    I hope you answered "no."

    If you did, then consider that the only thing separating birth control from abortion is a few weeks. Is the failure of birth control a good enough reason to compel a woman to have more children, at the expense of her happiness, her finances, and possibly her health?

    If you think aborting zygotes is murder, then don't do it. But the issue is freighted with way too many extremely personal considerations to justify forcing that decision on people who do not share it.
     
  16. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The answer is in the question.

    The reason for the confusion is that human being and person are interchangeable terms in Europe, which may not be the case in the USA or elsewhere - which is why I prefer to use the term human entity for embryos and foetuses.

    According the European Convention on Human Rights, human beings refer to born human entities. A foetus is therefore not a human being, so as the human entity that is being cared for in the ITU unit has been delivered (another way of saying born) it is a human being.
     
  17. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No has ever 'hid' from this topic, your question has actually been answered multiple times, in multiple threads, but here it is again:

    A fetus is a fetus until it has been born. A 24 week old is not a fetus, it is a human being/person, because it has been birthed into this world.

    That's the same answer I've told you before, and its the same answer I tell you again. That is the answer to your question.
     
  18. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who made that rule?
     
  19. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,832
    Likes Received:
    7,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The law did. Reasonable people on the Supreme Court in the 70s saw the absurdity in legislating a woman's uterus. They looked at the case and said "WTF, making a law about a body part? Shut the front door and get outttaa heeeerrreee"(paraphrased of course). The law cannot control the way other people will perceive the issue, but it protects the rights of those in question all the same. One of the best civil liberty court decisions ever made.
     
  20. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do think that an 8 or 9 month old fetus is arguably a baby, but I don't care because of the fact that abortions lower poverty and crime, which is in turn due to the fact that people who need/want abortions..generally shouldn't be having kids.
     
  21. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its the law. A fetus becomes a person when it has been born - that is why abortion is legal. Over here, in my State (and perhaps in certain States in the US) a fetus is only considered a person when a breath has been taken.

    I gave the opinion of the law (from where I live) and the opinion the law has is the same opinion I share.
     
  22. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People, do remember that this is what is being discussed. A very specific question, so lets try and keep our posts as closely related to this question as possible.
     
  23. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a difference between a fetus at 8 weeks and 24 weeks.

    I would claim that at 24 weeks the fetus is a human precisely on the basis of the C-Section example and other factors such as having significant brain function and essentially having all the characteristics of a born human.

    The C- Section example of course does not apply to the 8 week fetus and nor does an 8 week fetus have significant brain function and other characteristics I feel are requisite to have the claim "a human exists" pass the giggle test.
     

Share This Page