Thread: A Complete Epiphany on Abortion

Technically even with zero brain activity if your heart is still beating and other major organs are still functioning, you are still alive. Death is technically when your heart stops beating. But I'm just nit-picking.

Originally Posted by Shinysides

Technically even with zero brain activity if your heart is still beating and other major organs are still functioning, you are still alive. Death is technically when your heart stops beating. But I'm just nit-picking.

What? Says who? There is no single, universally accepted correct definition of when death occurs or when someone is alive/dead, so it makes no sense to say that "technically" someone is still alive under such and such conditions. Saying "technically" makes it sound like there is some official definition of death out there, which there isn't. Even if by "technically" you mean "legally", different jurisdictions have different definitions for when someone is legally dead; heart stoppage isn't the universal legal definition of death by any means. So basically, no, it is totally untrue and meaningless to say that you are "technically dead when your heart stops beating".

Originally Posted by Shinysides

Technically even with zero brain activity if your heart is still beating and other major organs are still functioning, you are still alive. Death is technically when your heart stops beating. But I'm just nit-picking.

If we were to adopt this principle then abortion would rarely be an issue. The heart starts beating in a fetus @ 29 days after conception. Most women don't even realize they are even pregnant at this point.

This is not worthy of AI.

I mean the subject of abortion is, but it would need to be worded a lot clearer than this.

Although, personally, I debated abortion on another (now defunct) forum far too much so I'm not really interested enough to do it myself.

If this thread turns into a copy and paste of 'what defines being alive under abortion standards' arguments i'm going to move this thread into flames.

Otherwise, the premise seems to have promise, even if it has the potential to spiral wildly out of control.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

If this thread turns into a copy and paste of 'what defines being alive under abortion standards' arguments i'm going to move this thread into flames.

Um, why? Isn't that the whole point of abortion?

I'm assuming everyone agrees that murder of an innocent adult human is deserving of illegality.

Originally Posted by benzss

Um, why? Isn't that the whole point of abortion?

I'm assuming everyone agrees that murder of an innocent adult human is deserving of illegality.

If it devolves into arguing the same couple points that have already been rehashed everywhere else, then what is the point of this thread?

I'm interested in the philosophy behind the op's thinking though.

Originally Posted by benzss

Um, why? Isn't that the whole point of abortion?

No.

If killing is bad because it robs someone of personhood, then killing a baby is no different to killing a two-week-old foetus, which is no different to wanking into a paper cup. None of the above rob anyone of personhood.

Originally Posted by gwahir

No.

If killing is bad because it robs someone of personhood, then killing a baby is no different to killing a two-week-old foetus, which is no different to wanking into a paper cup. None of the above rob anyone of personhood.

Uhhh, sure, I was just questioning why coquavin thinks those kinds of arguments are irrelevant when essentially they're what make up the abortion argument.

Originally Posted by gwahir

No.

If killing is bad because it robs someone of personhood, then killing a baby is no different to killing a two-week-old foetus, which is no different to wanking into a paper cup. None of the above rob anyone of personhood.

I don't view killing as bad because it robs someone of their personhood, I view killing as bad because it ends their line of potential. I'm still pro-abortion, but I recognize that it is murder also.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I don't view killing as bad because it robs someone of their personhood, I view killing as bad because it ends their line of potential. I'm still pro-abortion, but I recognize that it is murder also.

How exactly do you define it as murder? Just for argument's sake?

Originally Posted by benzss

Uhhh, sure, I was just questioning why coquavin thinks those kinds of arguments are irrelevant when essentially they're what make up the abortion argument.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

If this thread turns into a copy and paste of 'what defines being alive under abortion standards' arguments i'm going to move this thread into flames.

coq's right. We're not talking about "what defines being alive". And it isn't the point, and they don't make up the abortion argument.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I view killing as bad because it ends their line of potential. I'm still pro-abortion, but I recognize that it is murder also.

Not having sex ends the line of potential of millions of sperm/egg combinations. So do condoms. So does the birth control pill. So does the morning after pill.

Originally Posted by gwahir

coq's right. We're not talking about "what defines being alive". And it isn't the point, and they don't make up the abortion argument.

Sooo... anybody who argues along those lines is excluded?

What other arguments would you prefer to see?

Originally Posted by gwahir

Not having sex ends the line of potential of millions of sperm/egg combinations. So do condoms. So does the birth control pill. So does the morning after pill.

Not having sex and using contraceptives doesn't end any human line of potential in terms of sperm and eggs. It inhibits the potential of the creation of something with human potential, but that makes the potential obscure enough that in my opinion it doesn't count as murder.

Originally Posted by benzss

Sooo... anybody who argues along those lines is excluded?

What other arguments would you prefer to see?

Any arguments about personhood, etc. Or even something about the value of potential. The question of when the foetus is "alive" is irrelevant, I think, because for it to matter you either have to be a speciesist or a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Not having sex and using contraceptives doesn't end any human line of potential in terms of sperm and eggs. It inhibits the potential of the creation of something with human potential, but that makes the potential obscure enough that in my opinion it doesn't count as murder.

It inhibits potential JUST AS MUCH as aborting a foetus does or killing a baby does. The potential isn't any more "obscure" just because you say so.

I suppose I'll post the video then. My explanations always seem clearer to me than others, but he says it fine, just takes a decent amount of time to get to the point (though he's entertaining to me so it works out). [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3koXGHud8U"]YouTube - Penn Says: Viewer Mail - Abortion[/ame]

I have always been on the side of the pro choice people. And my reasons have been largly the game, he sort of shares the same reasons that I do. The main reason that I do not consider the unborn child a human, like you are I, is to do with brain function. It cannot form memories, it has no cognition, therefore it cannot suffer, this for me is a really big difference and a crucial one. What does it matter if your other organs work, if your brain doesn't? In my mind it makes you little more than an elaborate vegetable.

I know that isn't a very nice way to describe my fellow humans, but without brain function you cannot form any relationships with other people and the world around you, you cannot forge an identity, you cannot experience the world on any meaningful level. And while the child is still in its early stages, still part of its mother, it is for this main reason that I tend to side with the pro choice people. It really does get me upset when people liken abortion to murdering a human who is walking around, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, they just are not the same.

I believe that it is our brain and subsequent experience that makes human life stand out from all other life, the reason we are the dominant species on this planet, for me it is the brain that defines us as a species more than anything else and whilst the unborn is still just a bunch of cells, for me it isn't human, it is potentially a human, but not yet.

Originally Posted by gismo

I have always been on the side of the pro choice people. And my reasons have been largly the game, he sort of shares the same reasons that I do. The main reason that I do not consider the unborn child a human, like you are I, is to do with brain function. It cannot form memories, it has no cognition, therefore it cannot suffer, this for me is a really big difference and a crucial one. What does it matter if your other organs work, if your brain doesn't? In my mind it makes you little more than an elaborate vegetable.

I know that isn't a very nice way to describe my fellow humans, but without brain function you cannot form any relationships with other people and the world around you, you cannot forge an identity, you cannot experience the world on any meaningful level. And while the child is still in its early stages, still part of its mother, it is for this main reason that I tend to side with the pro choice people. It really does get me upset when people liken abortion to murdering a human who is walking around, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, they just are not the same.

I believe that it is our brain and subsequent experience that makes human life stand out from all other life, the reason we are the dominant species on this planet, for me it is the brain that defines us as a species more than anything else and whilst the unborn is still just a bunch of cells, for me it isn't human, it is potentially a human, but not yet.

I don't want to put words in your mouth (or texts in your posts) but it seems you're saying you agree with what he's saying? That at this point about two months after conception (or however long) should be where the line is drawn and the abortion should no longer be able to be performed? The only reason I ask is because it seems like you may be agreeing and disagreeing at the same time, but I can't really decipher your true position.

Though I guess I shouldn't care, my main thing was just to share this idea and hopefully someone else will get as much joy and clarity out of thinking about it this way as I did. It seems so self-evident/obvious that I should have thought about abortion this way long before now, but I just never made that connection. I assume that I'm in good company in this though, since I've never once heard pro-choicers talk about it this way (and I've been in a fair amount of surprisingly reasonable abortion discussions), or maybe they have indirectly and it just took a video like this for me to see the meaning.

Well then I suppose you and I have differing opinions on what constitutes a sensible definition in regards to this issue. That is my personal definition of murder, and thus it is the perspective I speak from. I will say, however, that to say sperm on its own has as much potential as an embryo doesn't make much, as one is undeniably more advanced than the other.

Also, recognize is spelled with a z.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Also, recognize is spelled with a z.

Only in America, which obviously doesn't count.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Well then I suppose you and I have differing opinions on what constitutes a sensible definition in regards to this issue. That is my personal definition of murder, and thus it is the perspective I speak from.

So murder doesn't need to be the killing of a person? It can be the killing of a fish, or a tree?

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I will say, however, that to say sperm on its own has as much potential as an embryo doesn't make much, as one is undeniably more advanced than the other.

So? That doesn't mean it has more potential. That means it's achieved more of its potential. It still has just as much.

Originally Posted by gwahir

So murder doesn't need to be the killing of a person? It can be the killing of a fish, or a tree?

By potential I meant positive human potential. I suppose I should have been more specific.

Originally Posted by gwahir

So? That doesn't mean it has more potential. That means it's achieved more of its potential. It still has just as much.

I disagree, I view it as having more potential because it is more likely to become a human (at this level that is pretty much all the potential it can have).

Originally Posted by Mr. E

By potential I meant positive human potential. I suppose I should have been more specific.

I disagree, I view it as having more potential because it is more likely to become a human (at this level that is pretty much all the potential it can have).

I'm sure you mean "person", not "human".

And "more likely to become a person" does not equal "more potential". They have the same potential; one is just more likely to achieve it. And at what point does likelihood decrease to the point of being negligible?

Besides, just because there isn't one distinct being whose potential is being frustrated by not having sex, that doesn't mean potential isn't being frustrated. Certainly, a human being WILL come out of a successful session of reproductive sex -- not having sex means that no human being will be created. The same amount of potential is being frustrated.

Ah, abortion. Always a fun argument because even after you eliminate religion, it is still an incredibly complicated scientific and ethical debate.

Just a disclaimer, all of my arguments run on the secular idea that no soul exists.

A personal solution I offer to this problem is incomplete yet I believe it is more complete than any other theory:
Humans are separated from the other animals on Earth mainly by the existence of an intelligent conscience. I believe this separation should distinguish when an abortion is legal. Up until the presence of a conscience (the start of brain activity to be more accurate) abortion should be legal. This allows plenty of time for drunk 16 year olds and raped mothers to correct the course if they wish.

The most prominent argument against this would be the mere existence of handicapped people. How do you define intelligent? I think there needs to be a standard, such as the existence of basic emotion and response to stimuli. If they pass the test (which 100% of current handicapped people would be able to), great!

Finally, the religious right, in their final death throes, would argue that apes and dolphins too have emotions and a conscience. Since us evil evolutionists think the crazy idea that we came from these apes and dolphins (?) we must put them on the same level as us.

Know what I would say? Fuck you.

I'm still not particularly clear on how you actually define Murder Mr E.

No, that was just kind of a rant. I think once the baby is out of the mother, he should have the same basic rights as every living human being, but when still inside, when still a developing fetus, the mother should be able to abort said baby at any time.