Ok, i know there are lots of abortion threads. I would like to make this a reasonable, logical thread (ha!) to answer the basic question: When does human life begin? I propose this discussion as a scientific one. I'm not arguing for or against killing anyone.. just the basis for the ideals. It is a definition problem. Instead of seeking a moral or even scientific basis for human life, the left merely 'defines' the unborn as 'not human', so they do not deserve protection. Yet they grieve & are filled with great compassion for the plight of a mass murderer on death row. I find it very ironic that they can dismiss an innocent unborn without any consideration of rights or value, yet fight for the life of a sociopathic killer. I still think it is not clear, nor universally accepted 'when' a human is a human. Is it at viability? Outside the womb? When the person can take care of themselves? At brain activity? Heartbeat? Many of these determinations seem a bit arbitrary to me.. just plucking a 'standard' out of a hat. I'm not arguing women's reproductive rights, just human life.. if you take the position that one person's 'rights' ends where another person's begins. Or should mothers have the right to end their babies' lives whenever they want, up to some other arbitrary age? Opposition to abortion & the death penalty were once the domain of classic liberal thought. It was a 'sanctity of life' issue.. they thought that human life was sacred & should be protected.. no death penalty, & no abortion, as a living child was thought to be terminated. If this is not the case, then all there needs to be to end the debate is a clear, scientific proof or even consensus of when human life begins. Then the liberals can defend both the criminal & the babies, & have a sanctity of life argument. But to argue that killing babies is ok, but not murderers seems inconsistent & illogical. When is a human a 'protected' person, why, & what is the evidence for that view? Unless there is real evidence of life, can it be simply 'redefined' by some govt power? I get the 'fetus' redefinition, but think there needs to be a better, more universally accepted way of determining life than either a politician, judge or religious leader declaring it. I'm not wanting to rehash all the old pro choice vs pro life arguments, but i guess that is unavoidable. So let's just keep it simple. When does a fetus become a baby? At brain activity? 3rd trimester? Breathing air? Heartbeat? Judicial certification? Viability? Self-reliance? Why & when is a human a human? A followup question is, 'Should human life be protected, or allowed redefining for social engineering purposes?
No it wasn't. You could have chosen not to click the Post New Thread button. To the best of our knowledge, life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago. Almost every cell in your body, at any given time, is alive. So too is a blade of grass. Life doesn't begin at conception. Personhood begins with self-awareness. Citizenship begins with birth.
How do these opinions apply to the abortion debate? You are not a person until you are self aware? What basis do you have for that belief? - - - Updated - - - People are technically & legally 'alive' without brain activity. Unless you have a living will, or someone with the authority to 'pull the plug', doctors are not allowed to do it. The person is still considered to be 'alive'. If this is the legal standard at death, it seems like a reasonable extrapolation to move it to birth, too. Why not? What is the difference? Why is it ok to pull the plug on a brain dead person, but not on someone in a coma, with some brain activity? Neither of those are 'viable', either. It seems there is a bit of a legal standard for life.
So, 'personhood' is a redefinition, used to obscure scientific reality, & introduce moving goalposts, & vague definitions? Let's define, 'personhood'. When is a person a person? If there are differences on when that happens, should we not err on the side of caution? Should not the most innocent of humans have SOME protection from those who wish them ill? If protection of human life is going to be dependent on some moving goalposts, we are at the mercy of those making the definitions. At some point, anyone can be 'redefined' as not human, & only those making the definitions, either by popular vote or by decree, are right. Wouldn't it be better to be ruled by law, rather than cognitive relativism? Now you can say, 'surely those in power will use common sense in determining the rights of people, & when their lives should be protected'. But all of history is an example of constant violations of human life. Govts are no exceptions, & are the worse violators of human life there are. IMO, we need a clear legal definition of WHEN a person is a person, to protect us from the vague redefinings of the powerful elite.
I just don't like the limbo & moving goal posts that the pro abortion camp installs. Why not provide a safe definition of life that give the benefit of the doubt to the child? They cannot speak for themselves, or plead for their own lives, why shouldn't we? I don't want to drown in a sea of relativity. If our basic right to life is not protected, but is redefined to meet some elite agenda, none are safe, & the govt is failing in its basic duty to protect the weak from the strong. I think you have to come to grips with some kind of definition of human life. It is not THAT complicated. Pro abortionists act like it is impossible to determine when a person is a person. That is bull. They just don't want a definition, so they can keep moving the goal posts. If it is an arbitrary point, pick it & defend it, logically & scientifically. But throwing up your hands like it is too complex of an issue to know is no different than any relativist view of human life. Why not just embrace eugenics? When is ANY human protected? When should YOUR life be protected from those who might think you are unnecessary or irrelevant to humanity?
I thought you didn't like to debate with "leftists????? """"""""""""""""""see, this is why i don't like to 'debate' with leftists.. they weasel around, put words in my mouth that i didn't say, deflect from the issue, needle & insult pushing the limits of the mod's rules, & are in general, dishonest, lying debaters. I went out of my way responding to your illogical, baiting 'followup' questions, but you only try to twist them to insult & needle me. You can have this $h*t. I find it repulsive.""""""""""" Is the above quotation familiar? Do you know that righties and Republicans also have abortions. Dishonest debate ....want to whine about politics that's a different forum...
perhaps i should be more clear.. a$$h*le leftists & dishonest debaters are the ones i avoid. You know the type.. they hijack every thread into personal invectives, ad hominems, & needling their debating 'opponents', instead of refuting points made or responding to the OP... kind of like you are doing now..
ya, like this: """"""""""""""""""see, this is why i don't like to 'debate' with leftists.. they weasel around, put words in my mouth that i didn't say, deflect from the issue, needle & insult pushing the limits of the mod's rules, & are in general, dishonest, lying debaters. I went out of my way responding to your illogical, baiting 'followup' questions, but you only try to twist them to insult & needle me. You can have this $h*t. I find it repulsive.""""""""""" Please continue bumping up your own thread ....
Let us see how long it is before you resort to the very things you claim of others. Human life began approx 3.8 billion years ago if you want to be specific then please do ask a question relevant to the issue. That is factually incorrect, no pro-choice person (not all are "lefties") would say that at conception the unborn are not human, you are simply projecting your generalizations and assumptions onto others. Again false equivalence on your part, the assumption that all pro-choice people simply "dismiss" the unborn is absurd, and I for one have no problem with the death penalty for the people who have been found guilty of crimes that warrant it. I find it also ironic that, for the most, right-wingers are adamant about a persons right to be left alone, to protect themselves and to be free of government interference while fighting for the government to enforce restrictions on women. There are a number of various ideologies concerning this and so far subject matter experts cannot agree, my personal opinion is when there is consistent brain wave activity. No more arbitrary than the person at conception ideology considering the fact that fertilization can take anything up to 24 hours to complete, so my question to you is when EXACTLY does a human being come into exsistence, 1 hour after conception, 2 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours etc etc The problem with your position of "one person's 'rights' ends where another person's begins." when dealing with pregnancy and abortion is that the zef violates the woman's rights if she does not consent to the pregnancy, and even a right to life does not over rule a persons right to defend themselves against non consented injury ie self-defence laws. A zef is biologically dependant on a single person, a born baby is socially dependent on any person. A woman can remove the imposition of a baby without the need for deadly force, the same is not true in a pregnancy situation. I require evidence for this assertion. This know drops into the realms of religion and religion has no place in your original assertion of "I propose this discussion as a scientific one.", so please stick to the remit of your own OP. There is only one branch that can, at some point, define when a human (noun) being exists and that is the scientific and/or medical community specifically the subject specialists, and they cannot agree - until there is a consensus then the issue of when does a human (noun) being exist will remain a bone of contention .. however, the issue of abortion does not solely rest on when a human becomes a "person". With the legal profession becoming involved in the abortion issue prior to Roe and the SCOTUS decision on Roe itself any future changes to abortion laws will be fought in the courts and should the status of the zef become a protected person that does not mean elective abortion will automatically become illegal, by pro-life lawyers taking the legal route they have opened up other arguments in favour of abortion AND for the states to pay for it. Strictly speaking under scientific and medical conditions a fetus becomes a baby upon birth, no matter how far along the pregnancy is . .so in my estimation you are asking the wrong question. There is no redefining at all, even your follow up question requires clarification .. exactly what is human life, every single cell in my body is human life, that does not make each of them a human (noun) being. It is a common thing with pro-lifers, they attempt to interchange the human adjective with the human noun.
False ... without brain activity people are brain dead and as such are technically and legally dead. False - Doctors can and do issue "time of death" upon certain criteria being met, which includes; Identification of history or physical examination findings that provide a clear etiology of brain dysfunction. The determination of brain death requires the identification of the proximate cause and irreversibility of coma. Severe head injury, hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, hypoxic-ischemic brain insults and fulminant hepatic failure are potential causes of irreversible loss of brain function. The evaluation of a potentially irreversible coma should include, as may be appropriate to the particular case; clinical or neuro-imaging evidence of an acute CNS catastrophe that is compatible with the clinical diagnosis of brain death; Exclusion of any condition that might confound the subsequent examination of cortical or brain stem function. The conditions that may confound clinical diagnosis of brain death are: Shock/ hypotension Hypothermia -temperature < 32°C Drugs known to alter neurologic, neuromuscular function and electroencephalographic testing, like anaesthetic agents, neuroparalytic drugs, methaqualone, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, high dose bretylium, amitryptiline, meprobamate, trichloroethylene, alcohols. Brain stem encephalitis. Guillain- Barre' syndrome. Encephlopathy associated with hepatic failure, uraemia and hyperosmolar coma Severe hypophosphatemia. Performance of a complete neurological examination. Components of a complete neurological examination are: Examination of the patient-absence of spontaneous movement, decerebrate or decorticate posturing, seizures, shivering, response to verbal stimuli, and response to noxious stimuli administered through a cranial nerve path way. During the examination spinal reflexes may be present. Absent pupillary reflex to direct and consensual light; pupils need not be equal or dilated. The pupillary reflex may be selectively altered by eye trauma, cataracts, high dose dopamine, glutethamide, scopolamine, atropine, bretilium or monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Absent corneal, oculocephalic, cough and gag reflexes. The corneal reflex may be altered as a result of facial weakness. Absent oculovestibular reflex when tested with 20 to 50 ml. Of ice water irrigated into an external auditory canal clear of cerumen, and after elevating the patients head 30'. Labyrinthine injury or disease, anticholinergics, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, and some sedatives may alter response. Failure of the heart rate to increase by more than 5 beats per minute after 1- 2 mg. of atropine intravenously. This indicates absent function of the vagus nerve and nuclei. Absent respiratory efforts in the presence of hypercarbia. Generally, the apnoea test is performed after the second examination of brainstem reflexes. The apnoea test need only be performed once when its results are conclusive. Before performing the apnoea test, the physician must determine that the patient meets the following conditions: Core temperature ≥ 36.5°C or 97.7°F Euvolemia. Option: positive fluid balance in the previous 6 hours Normal PCO2. Option: arterial PCO2 ≥ 40 mm Hg Normal PO2. Option: pre-oxygenation to arterial PO2 ≥ 200 mm Hg After determining that the patient meets the above prerequisites, the physician should conduct the apnoea test as follows: Connect a pulse oximeter and disconnect the ventilator. Deliver 100% O2, 6 l/min, into the trachea. Option: place a cannula at the level of the carina. Look closely for any respiratory movements (abdominal or chest excursions that produce adequate tidal volumes). Measure arterial PO2, PCO2, and pH after approximately 8 minutes and reconnect the ventilator. If respiratory movements are absent and arterial PCO2 is ≥ 60 mm Hg (option: 20 mm Hg increase in PCO2 over a baseline normal PCO2), the apnoea test result is positive (i.e. it supports the diagnosis of brain death). If respiratory movements are observed, the apnoea test result is negative (i.e. it does not support the clinical diagnosis of brain death). Connect the ventilator, if during testing the systolic blood pressure becomes < 90 mm Hg (or below age appropriate thresholds in children less than 18 years of age) or the pulse oximeter indicates significant oxygen desaturation, or cardiac arrhythmias develop; Immediately draw an arterial blood sample and analyze arterial blood gas. If PCO2 is ≥ 60 mm Hg or PCO2 increase is ≥ 20 mm Hg over baseline normal PCO2, the apnoea test result is positive (it supports the clinical diagnosis of brain death). if PCO2 is < 60 mm Hg and PCO2 increase is < 20 mm Hg over baseline normal PCO2, the result is indeterminate and a confirmatory test can be considered. When appropriate a 10 min. apnoea test can be performed after preoxygenation for 10 minutes with an Fi02 of 1.0 and normalization of patients PaCO2 to 40 mmHG. Assessment of brainstem reflexes Pupils- no response to bright light Size: midposition (4 mm) to dilated (9 mm) (absent light reflex - cranial nerve II and III) Ocular movement- cranial nerve VIII, III and VI No oculocephalic reflex (testing only when no fracture or instability of the cervical spine or skull base is apparent) No deviation of the eyes to irrigation in each ear with 50 ml of cold water (tympanic membranes intact; allow 1 minute after injection and at least 5 minutes between testing on each side) Facial sensation and facial motor response No corneal reflex (cranial nerve V and VII) No jaw reflex (cranial nerve IX) No grimacing to deep pressure on nail bed, supraorbital ridge, or temporo-mandibular joint (afferent V and efferent VII) Pharyngeal and tracheal reflexes (cranial nerve IX and X) No response after stimulation of the posterior pharynx No cough response to tracheobronchial suctioning Clinical observations compatible with the diagnosis of brain death: The following manifestations are occasionally seen and should not be misinterpreted as evidence for brainstem function: spontaneous movements of limbs other than pathologic flexion or extension response respiratory-like movements (shoulder elevation and adduction, back arching, intercostal expansion without significant tidal volumes) sweating, flushing, tachycardia normal blood pressure without pharmacologic support or sudden increases in blood pressure absence of diabetes insipidus deep tendon reflexes; superficial abdominal reflexes; triple flexion response Babinski reflex Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain, including the brainstem. The three essential findings in brain death are coma, absence of brainstem reflexes, and apnoea. An evaluation for brain death should be considered in patients who have suffered a massive, irreversible brain injury of identifiable cause. A patient determined to be brain dead is legally and clinically dead. Source - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772257/ False - Brain dead people are not considered to be alive, not medically or legally. A person in a coma does not meet the criteria to be deemed brain dead and even a person in a coma has higher brain activity that a pre 28 week fetus.
Personhood is well defined in USA Law as follows - A person is recognized by law as such, not because they are human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to them. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered to be having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person. A fetus does not meet the criteria of an individual, an individual is single and/or separate. Legally a person is a person upon reaching adulthood, prior to that point they do not have all the rights associated with being a person. The beginning of human personhood is a concept long debated by religion and philosophy. According to some theories, once human beings are born, personhood is considered automatic. Some consider adult legal capacity to be a criterion for personhood in certain contexts, such as the U.S. Constitution, where one must have adult capacity to exercise the rights (an infant cannot engage in free assembly, for example). Some have argued that personhood could also extend to fetuses and human embryos, depending on what theory one ascribes to. With respect to abortion, 'personhood' is the status of a human being having individual human rights. The term was used by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade. Others have questioned this theory because a fetus cannot exist without its mother. While a child can survive outside its mother's body, even a child requires many years of development before personhood status in the U.S. Constitution can have meaning, such as the right to assembly mentioned above. You are doing exactly what all other pro-lifers do, you are basing your arguments purely on the side of the fetus and ignoring the arguments based on the female .. You are claiming that the fetus is "the most innocent of humans" and while this may be true that does not mean it can impose itself onto other people without their consent. The whole "innocent" thing is a red herring with no real relevance to the issue. There are no more moving goalposts than can be found in the pro-life camp, some want all abortions banned, some want only abortions allowed for life threat to the female, some want abortions allowed for life threats and foetal disability incompatible with life, some want abortions allowed for rape and incest. Even the ideology of person at conception is based on arbitrary conclusions as the exact point of fertilization is unknown. Yes and this has been done through out history and on each and every occasion it dealt with BORN people, there is no historical evidence to show that a fetus has EVER been considered a person .. does that make it right, not in the slightest and from my personal perspective deeming the fetus as a person right from conception does not automatically mean that elective abortion would become illegal, by taking this issue to the courts instead of leaving it to the medical community (as it is in Canada) pro-lifers have opened up numerous legal ways for elective abortion to be legal and for the state to pay for it. and yet pro-lifers want the government to enforce laws that will violate the rights of a section of the people .. go figure.
There is no moving goalposts or limbo on the pro-choice side, our stance is very clear and precise on the issue. There is and never has been a civil legal precedence that forces a person to allow their body to be used by another, and as a person, the foetus most certainly is 'another'. It is the same old thing, pro-lifers want all the protections that personhood gives but none of the restrictions of that status - they, pro-lifers, in fact want the fetus to be a super-person with rights that exceed all other peoples. Your basic right to life does not allow you to use another person in order to sustain that life no matter how weak or strong you are. You are guilty of appealing to emotions - a fallacy. For a start there are no pro-abortionists .. why pro-lifers insist on projecting that lie escapes me, can you not debate the issues without resorting to blatant emotional appeals? Yet again you are making assumptions without facts, please do show where ANY person here has EVER said that a zef is "unnecessary or irrelevant to humanity?" or is this just again you projecting what you want to believe as true? - - - Updated - - - You have made very few points in your OP, most of it is an opinion piece with no actual evidence to support it.
There are a lot of laws that impose obligations on people Stop trying to take away personal responsibility. The fetus is the most innocent of humans, and it doesnt deserved to be aborted just because a lazy woman doesnt want to take care of a child. The fetus is "imposing itself without consent". SO WHAT? Abortion is totally different from other situations regarding consent. It is a unique situation. You cant prove otherwise. I think laws are at least partially based on morality. For example, bribery is a crime, because using money for advantage is considered dishonest and morally wrong.
Yes and no, depends how it's being used. Personhood is a legal term that describes a legal "state" of being. Simply being alive does not qualify you for personhood anymore than it qualifies a tree or a gall bladder. Personhood is another way of describing the concept of being an individual. An individual is one person. Right off the bat that precludes the possibility of fetal personhood because individuals don't live inside other individuals. A person becomes a person at birth. That is when you cease being a connected dependent part of your mother's body and become an independent autonomous individual. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you are independent and autonomous that it means you're able to actually care for yourself. They aren't the same concept. But what is different is that once you are born, now you have no requirement for a specific person to take care of you and you are no longer occupying space inside of an individual that you are biologically reliant upon for every single need you may have. There are no moving goal posts. Birth has always been the cutoff for abortion for pro-choicers, and some even feel that a cutoff should occur before that dependent upon your view on human sentience. But when you take into account the rights of the mother and the way that American society actually considers and treats a fetus, birth is the most logical choice. That falls in line with just about every legal way of recognizing a person. Socially as well. Whether they realize it or not, just about every person I've ever interacted with can tell the difference between a born person and a fetus and they reflect it in their language. For example, it's why pregnant women say they are "having a baby". Not that they "have a baby". Birth is the most clear unambiguous place to grant personhood. There can be no confusion or redefinition as to when someone has been born.
it didn't take you long... deliberate obfuscation. You know the topic is when human life begins, as the abortion argument. This is not about origin of life in the universe. More deliberate obfuscation. IF you are admitting that the unborn are living human beings, how can you justify killing them? You hide behind distortions of definitions, vague redefinitions of 'personhood', or other verbal muddying. If you can kill the unborn for whimsical reasons, 'dismissal' is putting it mildly. This is mostly deflections & distractions from the central question: When does human life begin? You are dancing around the OPs main question. Ok, an answer to the question. You believe that a human becomes human at 'consistent brain wave activity'. You could just have skipped all the deflections & got right to the point, but to be fair, i interjected a lot of side babble in the buildup to the central question. I'm not sure how this applies. You already said your 'opinion' that human life begins at 'consistent brain wave activity'. So why argue about the point of 'arbitrary?' The basic issue here is the individual's life in question: The unborn person. Other people who are affected by that person have issues, to be sure, but their concerns & wants are not the current issue. Those are peripheral ones that can be part of follow up responses once the basic one of the humanity of the unborn is settled. I'll just assume these are polemical deflections. This is just more obfuscation. We clearly protect SOME humans, why not the unborn? Are they not human? Why do they NOT deserve protection? You've changed your answer. Earlier you said 'at consistent brain wave activity'. Now, you say that it's not until birth. This is the CENTRAL question for the abortion debate. Nothing else matters, until this most basic question of protected human life is defined. Of course it is redefining. As you are attempting to deflect from the issue by obscuring with grammatical nuances. This is not a debate over nouns & verbs, but the protection of living human beings. They are not nouns, or verbs, but people. IF you can 'redefine' them as non persons, then you can justify taking their lives. But, if you cannot redefine them, you support the murder of innocent human beings, & have blood on your hands.
The "when does life begin" issue would never be discussed if abortion weren't at the center of the debate. It's basically a ruse created by the pro baby-in-a-blender crowd (the ones that use the term "choice" instead of "child butchery") to make the act of running unborn children through a meat grinder a little more viewer friendly.
Thanks for the straightforward reply. I appreciate your clear stance on 'personhood' being at birth. But i'm sure you realize that many even in the pro choice camp do not agree. Some say 4-5 months. Some say 6.. so my point that there is ambiguity, arbitrariness, & moving goal posts is accurate in this debate.
It doesn't have to be viewer friendly. Amputating an arm or flesh eating bacterial infections aren't viewer friendly either. But like it or not, as individuals we are entitled to control over our own bodies. Yep, women too. I would also add that the entire concept of personhood is a smokescreen created by those who want to view a fetus as a person, as long as they don't have to treat it like one outside of banning abortion, or even after birth. When's the last time you saw a pro-lifer outside the Census Bureau protesting that fetuses are not treated as a person by the census?
Except when you're a defenseless unborn child then you're screwed. Cowards always go after the defenseless ones first.
This obfuscation with 'personhood' deflects from the central issue. Mentally unfit humans, children, & other non 'natural persons' that you mention are not the subject. This is not a debate of the age of accountability, or the drinking age, or voting, or other responsible human conditions. This is much deeper.. the core of an individual's humanity. When does it begin? Why there? It is the central argument. The issue of the parents rights are separate. The dependency & helplessness of the unborn baby is not the issue, as 5 minutes after birth, the baby is still dependent & helpless. If you are killing a human being, & there is no justification for doing so (no demands for justice, or self defense), then you are killing an innocent. There is no other way to see it, unless you can dehumanize the subject & redefine him as a 'non person'. Most of the prolifers i know allow these exceptions as concessions.. it does not take away from the central issue of protected human life. And now it is done with unborn people.. but this is not new, either. Abortion has been around a long time, though in many cultures it has been considered a crime or at least immoral. In the us, it was activist judges who 'legalized' abortion, with NO legislation from elected representatives. That was a judicial act, using the force of govt to mandate morality. You cannot complain if the same tactics are used to protect life, instead of removing protections.
So, your accusation here is that pro-choicers are cowards? Even if I were on all the drugs in the world that wouldn't make sense to me so why don't you go ahead and explain that one.
I saved a quote from someone.. So the business owner who provided the business (womb) building and utilities (uterus) for years doesn't do anything because he produces nothing, his workers (baby) produces everything--nay is the product of those organs and therefore truly own the business (womb). That baby needs some direct action representatives on its behalf. Obama would say, 'You didn't build that!' to a mother, which is technically true. The baby is the one that seized the means of production, & did all the work. The mother just provided the room & board...
Children, especially the young, infants, unborn need our protection. That as parents, fathers/mothers, humans is our duty. Mostly as humans. To just brutally butcher those who depend on us for our survival - for the sake of "choice" is inhuman. So I guess you're right, my logic is erroneous. To be a coward one first needs to be a human.
The individual "right to life" that is endowed upon us by our creator (God, nature, whatever) is unalienable, per the Declaration of Independence. The key word to examine here becomes 'individual'. An individual right is held by an individual. And individual is capable of sustaining its life on its own, else it is not an individual. IMO, an offspring, while still dependent upon its parents, is not an individual; it is an appendage. Therefore, I think abortion, up to and until the age of 18 years, and any time thereafter if they haven't been capable of achieving self-sustenance, should be legal.
