Personally, I do not believe in abortion. But I also do not believe in shoving my beliefs down other people's throat. I think we should encourage this sort of debate. By so doing we make people think twice before choosing abortion. Make them see the foetus as a life before choosing abortion. After that, the decision should be left to the owner of the foetus. My opinion anyway.

PhenomenonVFX: Personally, I do not believe in abortion. But I also do not believe in shoving my beliefs down other people's throat. I think we should encourage this sort of debate. By so doing we make people think twice before choosing abortion. Make them see the foetus as a life before choosing abortion. After that, the decision should be left to the owner of the foetus. My opinion anyway.

Nice input but I don't think this is about shoving personal beliefs down someone else's throat...this is unlike a belief or lack of belief in God...where one can say: Oh well, everyone has a right to his or her own opinion...this is far from that...

We are talking about human life which needs to be respected as such...we are talking about someone having a right to live...this is not about someone claiming that a cake belongs to her and so she has every right to do whatever she likes with it...No...for petes sake...

If a mother does not want to be a mum to her child, would it be wrong for her to give the child just 9 months fighting chance before given it up for adoption?

We talk about rights...if we cannot fight for the inalienable right to life of those who cannot fight for themselves then we have not begun talking about it.

Uyi Iredia:

Why do you think it's contradictory ?

Because a right to life isn't subject to the rights of life of others! Its absolute. The risk of endangering the mother's life ought not be a reason for aborting a foetus, if it has a right to life however it is self evident that such right is impracticable.

@strik

"A foetus that is less than two weeks old.

2) A foetus that is equal to or above two weeks old.

3) A few seconds old baby.

4) An adult that has lost consciousness due to an accident.

5) A dead human body."

1, 2, 5. are not senitent (a better word cos it is more encompassing than consciousness)

While 4 is only when permanent. A newborn baby is senitent.

Kay 17: @strik

"A foetus that is less than two weeks old.

2) A foetus that is equal to or above two weeks old.

3) A few seconds old baby.

4) An adult that has lost consciousness due to an accident.

5) A dead human body."

1, 2, 5. are not senitent (a better word cos it is more encompassing than consciousness)

While 4 is only when permanent. A newborn baby is senitent.

In the event that you are mistaking sentient to mean something else, below is the definition of sentient:


Definition of SENTIENT

1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient


Going by the above definition those who can be said to be sentient would be just (2) and (3) while (1), (4) and (5) deserve the same fate....to end up six feet under.


Still you shift the goal post.

This is better:

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason" from the ability to feel ("sentience". In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia". For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights.

^^

From wikipedia's article on sentience.

^^^

Lol!!!

How does that article help your case?...The article actually weigh in my favour...

@strik

In respect to your examples, I doubt if a dead body, or a foetus of 2 wks will have sentience.

Kay 17: @strik

In respect to your examples, I doubt if a dead body, or a foetus of 2 wks will have sentience.

I don't think I said they do...

striktlymi:

Going by the above definition those who can be said to be sentient would be just (2) and (3) while (1), (4) and (5) deserve the same fate....to end up six feet under.


Still you shift the goal post.

Now Kay,

Like I mentioned, if we want to go by your definition of sentient, an unconscious fellow is no more human than a two week old fetus and similarly, those who were born without the ability to feel pains can be regarded as semi humans.

Kay 17:

Because a right to life isn't subject to the rights of life of others! Its absolute. The risk of endangering the mother's life ought not be a reason for aborting a foetus, if it has a right to life however it is self evident that such right is impracticable.

The bolded is why I said mothers in mortal danger can abort. The mother's right to life shouldn't be subject to the baby's. It becomes even easier considering the mother can still birth another or there is a possibility both mother and child will die.

@strik

So that leaves us with no.4. No 4 has an anticipated future.

@uyi iredia

The law is: the right to life is absolute simple! It leaves no space for what you are saying.

However from the prochoice view, sentience is the prerequisite for being a person and which much is more practicable.

Kay 17:
@uyi iredia

The law is: the right to life is absolute simple! It leaves no space for what you are saying.

However from the prochoice view, sentience is the prerequisite for being a person and which much is more practicable.

There is no such thing as an absolute right, everything is relative. Your rights end where the next person's begin. The fact that I'm dying of renal failure doesn't give me the right to kidnap you and harvest one of your kidneys. You can't endanger someone else to preserve your own life unless you have their explicit consent.

The same applies to unborn babies and their mothers.

Morning Kay,

Kay 17: @strik

So that leaves us with no.4. No 4 has an anticipated future.

That is not correct! If we are talking in terms of what has an anticipated future then the only odd one out would be number 5, that is, the dead human body...the fetus, the baby, and the man all have anticipated futures, whether they are conscious of it or not is however not material for consideration.

If we talk in terms of sentience, no matter how insignificant this awareness is, then the only items in that list that should be considered persons, according to your definition, would be the fetus that is above two weeks old and the baby. This would effectively relegate item number (4), the unconscious bloke, to the background.

The criteria you set to determine whether one is a person or not is very flawed and I believe I have shown the flaw inherent in it more than once. The only relevant attribute for a person is human life...if one does not have it then that individual is as good as a corpse.

Looking through the list I gave, the only odd item would be the dead human body while the other items should be regarded as persons because they share a common attribute i.e they all have human life in them.

Morning Uyi,

Uyi Iredia:

The mother's right to life shouldn't be subject to the baby's.

...and you honestly believe that it is fair for the baby's right to life be subject to that of the Mother's?

@strik

A 2wk old foetus has no anticipated future, it is clear. You rather insisted on his mother's vision of a future for it is good enough as anticipated future, which isn't my view.

Kay 17: @strik

A 2wk old foetus has no anticipated future, it is clear. You rather insisted on his mother's vision of a future for it is good enough as anticipated future, which isn't my view.

That is still incorrect...

There is no difference between the anticipated future of a foetus and that of a newborn.

Evil Brain: Why do you refuse to acknowledge that pregnant women also have rights? Why should the baby's right to life nullify the woman's right to protect her own life and wellbeing??

I acknowledge the rights of pregnant women. I also acknowledge the rights of their babies. Babies are human beings too you know.

The fact that a patient is on lIfe suport means that doctors have gone to extraordinary lengths to save his/her life. You are comparing a doctor who makes the difficult decision to stop spending valuable resources on a hopeless case (usually so they can put someone else on the scarce life support machine; and always with the family's consent) to Joseph Stalin. If you insist on this foolish line of arargument, then I'm not going to waste any more time debating with you. Godwin's law applies to Stalin as well.

Ha...you see your analogy here is quite unrelated to an expecting mother. Where the person on life support is a "hopeless case" as you put it i.e. the doctors have tried everything they can to save the life and then gave up, for a fetus it's a different scenario because the fetus is not a hopeless case. It will most likely survive if it isn't murdered before maturity.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Very premature fetuses cannot survive without living inside the mother, messing up her body and endangering her life. Neither term babies nor adults have this problem. This is not a difficult concept.

Lol, you keep making this bad argument while conveniently ignoring the fact that likewise a newborn cannot survive without depending on the mother and messing up her finances. I really find it hard to believe that you will justify killing another human being because you want to have a flat belly. That has to be the height of narcissism

The mother is the one taking care of those basic needs at considerable cost to herself. If she wants to do so, then that's fine, but you shouldn't force a woman to sacrifice her life or health against her will.

Then I don't see why you should have a problem with women who abandon their babies in a dumpster or simply just leaves her baby to starve to death at home since according to you a woman shouldn't be forced to sacrifice her life or health (and might I add finances) against her will.

Also, it's interesting that you're demonizing doctors when its the pregnant women who ask for the abortions. A doctor's duty is to his patient. If the mother wants an abortion, and the doctor believes that continuing the pregnancy is likely to endanger her physically or even psychologically, then why shouldn't he offer one?

I actually blame both the doctors and the women who murder their children. A doctor's duty is to save life not destroy it.

No it doesn't, you are conflating two very different scenarios. If someone needs a new liver or a kidney to survive, you can donate yours if you like But you can't be forced to when you don't want. In fact, you can't even be forced to pay for the surgery. But refusing to donate your kidney to someone who can't live without one is very different from killing someone.

But I hope you do realize how this scenario changes when this someone is your son or daughter as is the case of pregnant mothers. It becomes a duty.
Let me ask you straight. If your little son needs a kidney to survive and you have the right kidney to save him. As his father, are you supposed to pay for the surgery and donate one of your kidneys to save him? Or are you under no moral obligation to do so?

striktlymi:


What do the following have in common:


Striktlymi as a foetus

Striktlymi at 9 months in the womb

striktlymi as a newborn

striktlymi as a teenager


...the glaring answer would be life. Since that life does not change and is associated to a human being, it is not out of place to call it a human life.

If that life is squashed when it is a foetus there will never be a striktlymi, hence a human life would have been terminated.

Now, are you saying that before the enactment of the child right act, children were not human beings? Does the law or lack of one make an individual any less human?

I didn't fail to notice how you shifted the goal post to a two week old foetus...anyways so you know my stance, I am against any form of abortion...LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION!!!

This line of argument commits the slippery slope fallacy. There are significant differences between you as a zygote, you as a foetus and you as a teenager. e.g as a zygote, you had no skin, no brain, no eyes etc but as a teenager, you had all these features.

If your argument is that life starts at conception, that too is incorrect. It would be more correct to say that life continues at conception because both the sperm and egg are alive. I also don't think you'll want to follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion because it isn't only humans that are alive. Other vertebrates too are alive and many of them also have sperm and eggs yet unless you're a vegetarian, I suspect you would be fine with killing them.

@strikl

The difference is one of them is sentient and conscious beings generally have the ability to project into the future.

thehomer:

This line of argument commits the slippery slope fallacy. There are significant differences between you as a zygote, you as a foetus and you as a teenager. e.g as a zygote, you had no skin, no brain, no eyes etc but as a teenager, you had all these features.

If your argument is that life starts at conception, that too is incorrect. It would be more correct to say that life continues at conception because both the sperm and egg are alive. I also don't think you'll want to follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion because it isn't only humans that are alive. Other vertebrates too are alive and many of them also have sperm and eggs yet unless you're a vegetarian, I suspect you would be fine with killing them.

First of all, that line of argument does not commit the slippery slope fallacy because what it is defining cannot be represented on a slope. It is either one is a person or one isn't. There is no slope of values ranging from non-person to person. The slippery slope fallacy does not apply here.

Secondly, human beings are not defined by what stage of development they exist as. They are the same person regardless of what their bodies look like and how it changes.

Thirdly, your argument against "life starts at conception" is another example of you muddying the water by tossing in things irrelevant to the discusion such as the lives of other veterbrates and their reproductive cells while pretending not to understand that striktlymi is referring to the life of an individual human being starting at conception. If I were striktlymi, I'd just ignore that red herring.

Perhaps the important question you need to answer is: How do you define a human being? and when does the life of a human being begin?

Once you have answered that, then we can start talking

Hello TheH,

Though Anony has given a very good response but I will address this cause of the respect I have for you...

thehomer:

This line of argument commits the slippery slope fallacy.

Now this is pretty...a 'slippery slope' fallacy? Please tell us what the fallacy is and let us know how I committed it if you don't mind...please no links!

thehomer:
There are significant differences between you as a zygote, you as a foetus and you as a teenager. e.g as a zygote, you had no skin, no brain, no eyes etc but as a teenager, you had all these features.

The above demonstrates that you posted a bit too hasty without understanding my post...I did not ask for the DIFFERENCES, I asked for what is COMMON.

Now since you are so keen on the differences, let me ask you this: would the differences matter when there is no human life?

thehomer:
If your argument is that life starts at conception, that too is incorrect. It would be more correct to say that life continues at conception because both the sperm and egg are alive. I also don't think you'll want to follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion because it isn't only humans that are alive. Other vertebrates too are alive and many of them also have sperm and eggs yet unless you're a vegetarian, I suspect you would be fine with killing them.

The above has been thrashed already...I guess you did not read through the thread before posting...well this can be excused!

My argument is that human life starts at conception!

#I am not wih my lappy now and so might not respond as fast as I would have loved to!

Kay 17: The difference is one of them is sentient and conscious beings generally have the ability to project into the future.

Lol!!!

Kay are you still talking about this sentient thingy?

Mr anony:
First of all, that line of argument does not commit the slippery slope fallacy because what it is defining cannot be represented on a slope. It is either one is a person or one isn't. There is no slope of values ranging from non-person to person. The slippery slope fallacy does not apply here.

Actually, the slippery slope fallacy applies whenever one says there is no difference between two states that are different.

Mr anony:
Secondly, human beings are not defined by what stage of development they exist as. They are the same person regardless of what their bodies look like and how it changes.

No humans aren't defined by that but how can you refer to a zygote as a person and automatically grant it all rights that accrue to people while ignoring other entities that are more developed?

Mr anony:
Thirdly, your argument against "life starts at conception" is another example of you muddying the water by tossing in things irrelevant to the discusion such as the lives of other veterbrates and their reproductive cells while pretending not to understand that striktlymi is referring to the life of an individual human being starting at conception. If I were striktlymi, I'd just ignore that red herring.

Here you go again chucking out assertions about red herrings. My point is that life couldn't have started at conception if the sperm and egg that formed the product of conception were both alive.

Mr anony:
Perhaps the important question you need to answer is: How do you define a human being? and when does the life of a human being begin?

Once you have answered that, then we can start talking

I don't care about how you wish to define a human being because that isn't pertinent to my own argument. Since you're the one basing your argument on that, then it behooves you to do that to your satisfaction.

striktlymi: Hello TheH,

Though Anony has given a very good response but I will address this cause of the respect I have for you...

Mr anony's response still fails now as it failed in the past when he initially presented it.

striktlymi:
Now this is pretty...a 'slippery slope' fallacy? Please tell us what the fallacy is and let us know how I committed it if you don't mind...please no links!

You've already quoted me doing that below.

striktlymi:
The above demonstrates that you posted a bit too hasty without understanding my post...I did not ask for the DIFFERENCES, I asked for what is COMMON.

What is common to both of them is that they're alive. But that feature also applies to many other entities from other animals to the sperm and egg.

striktlymi:
Now since you are so keen on the differences, let me ask you this: would the differences matter when there is no human life?

I don't understand this question. Do you mean if humans never existed? Or if the mother was dead? Or the zygote was dead? Or something else?

striktlymi:
The above has been thrashed already...I guess you did not read through the thread before posting...well this can be excused!

My argument is that human life starts at conception!

#I am not wih my lappy now and so might not respond as fast as I would have loved to!

I just pointed out to you that human life cannot be said to start at conception since the sperm and egg are both alive.

Mr anony:
Lol, you keep making this bad argument while conveniently ignoring the fact that likewise a newborn cannot survive without depending on the mother and messing up her finances. I really find it hard to believe that you will justify killing another human being because you want to have a flat belly. That has to be the height of narcissism.

I don't know how to say it again so that you can understand. A term baby can be cared for by others if the mother chooses to withdraw her services, but a preterm baby (less than 22 weeks) can't. Nobody should be forced to compromise his or her own bodily integrity for another person's sake. Even if your own child needed one of your kidneys, you can't be forced to donate it against your will. In fact, even if another kidney is available, you can't be forced to give consent for surgery if you don't want to.

Even when Jehovah's Witnesses deny their kids even free, lifesaving blood transfusions because of their beliefs, the law recognizes their autonomy. Yet you want to deny that same autonomy to a woman whose life health and future are at stake.

Also, I find your attempt to trivialize the issue by claiming women want abortions for flat stomachs misogynistic and very offensive. You sound just like a US republican religious nut. I wonder if you have any sisters, or a mother.

thehomer:

Mr anony's response still fails now as it failed in the past when he initially presented it.



You've already quoted me doing that below.



What is common to both of them is that they're alive. But that feature also applies to many other entities from other animals to the sperm and egg.



I don't understand this question. Do you mean if humans never existed? Or if the mother was dead? Or the zygote was dead? Or something else?



I just pointed out to you that human life cannot be said to start at conception since the sperm and egg are both alive.

Never mind!!!

thehomer: Actually, the slippery slope fallacy applies whenever one says there is no difference between two states that are different.

This is simply not true.

No humans aren't defined by that but how can you refer to a zygote as a person and automatically grant it all rights that accrue to people while ignoring other entities that are more developed?

Since you disagree with how I define humans, how then do you define humans? You can't just disagree in a vacuum

I don't care about how you wish to define a human being because that isn't pertinent to my own argument. Since you're the one basing your argument on that, then it behooves you to do that to your satisfaction.

Lol, since you have shied away from telling us what you think a human being is or when you think the life of a human being starts, you have successfully excused yourself from making any objections as to how I define humans because you have provided no concept of human beings upon which your objections can be based.

As I said earlier, until you can tell us how you define a human being and when the life of a human being begins, you cannot make the argument as to whether or not a day old zygote is actually different as a human being from a fifty year old adult.

To make that argument will be to assume an initial point which you haven't justified.

Evil Brain: I don't know how to say it again so that you can understand. A term baby can be cared for by others if the mother chooses to withdraw her services, but a preterm baby (less than 22 weeks) can't. Nobody should be forced to compromise his or her own bodily integrity for another person's sake. Even if your own child needed one of your kidneys, you can't be forced to donate it against your will. In fact, even if another kidney is available, you can't be forced to give consent for surgery if you don't want to.

Even when Jehovah's Witnesses deny their kids even free, lifesaving blood transfusions because of their beliefs, the law recognizes their autonomy. Yet you want to deny that same autonomy to a woman whose life health and future are at stake.

This is why we draw the line between immoral and illegal. Do you think the actions of a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to let their kids receive lifesaving blood transfusions have done something morally right?

Also, I find your attempt to trivialize the issue by claiming women want abortions for flat stomachs misogynistic and very offensive. You sound just like a US republican religious nut. I wonder if you have any sisters, or a mother.

This accusation is just ridiculously silly especially since it was you who was arguing that a woman should be allowed to kill a baby that "messes up her body"

striktlymi: Morning Uyi,



...and you honestly believe that it is fair for the baby's right to life be subject to that of the Mother's?

It is actually. If the mother dies before a certain stage in the baby's growth, mental impairment or death could happen to the baby. The mother BTW has to keep herself safe and healthy for the baby's sake. Now if (assuming I'm married) I find out that the child is a grave risk to my wife's life, and this can only be remedied thu abortion, I'll take it. If you want to make the sacrifice of your spouse feel free - I won't unless she insists otherwise.

striktlymi:
Never mind!!!

Seems your BS tolerance is pretty low today. I liked that response.