Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope, as I've already stated (often) killing a 1 month old baby can never be considered abortion since it already was given birth. Abortion (and euthanasia) in Holland are legal, but murder isn't. Only the termination of a 1 month old foetus can be considered to be an abortion since it hasn't been delivered into the world.
A baby is not a foetus.
So, why did you bring sentience into the discussion at all, since you seem to NOW consider it irrelevent? I must conclude that you have now modified your stance from supporting abortion until sentience to supporting abortion up until birth, still an undefined point but at least a bit more reasonable.
Quote:
Besides, women generally decide to abort their pregnancy the moment they find out that they are pregnant and not the moment when their water broke.
I concur. However, the point here is to prevent the undue killing of fetuses/babies for the convenience of the mother, when that is indeed the case.
However, the point here is to prevent the undue killing of fetuses/babies for the convenience of the mother, when that is indeed the case.
Actually, the plain point here is to usurp a woman's right to guide her own reproductive history, making her interests as she sees them secondary to the matter of her interests as others (i.e., interlopers) see them.
Otherwise, the premise that there is any valid reason to prevent abortions that are for the convenience of the mother is not at all established. This is perhaps particularly so when anything short of a 100% certainty of death is classified as being mere inconvenience.
So, why did you bring sentience into the discussion at all, since you seem to NOW consider it irrelevent?
It has always been important; being sentient is imo more important than being alive.
The fact that you simply won't acknowledge that a foetus is not sentient is not my fault.
Since a foetus is not sentient abortion (killing the foetus) is not against the law.
There are people who are only technically alive (like brain dead coma patients) but simply aren't sentient.
In my eyes a baby that is just delivered is not yet sentient, but since it can survive being outside the womb it would be alive (without being brain dead) and it would be murder if one tried to kill it.
Quote:
I must conclude that you have now modified your stance from supporting abortion until sentience to supporting abortion up until birth, still an undefined point but at least a bit more reasonable.
I have not modified my stance therefore your conclusion is simply wrong.
As always you only seem to understand things when you believe that they are in your favour.
Sentience refers to the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latinroots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know". Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.
Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.
But consciousness is impossible without having senses. So you need senses to become self-aware, therefore they are inseparable.
If you have a conscience (brain) but have no senses at all (not even touch) you will be imprisoned in your own mind and very well might never become aware of yourself.
Originally Posted by expat007 But consciousness is impossible without having senses. So you need senses to become self-aware, therefore they are inseparable.
If you have a conscience (brain) but have no senses at all (not even touch) you will be imprisoned in your own mind and very well might never become aware of yourself.
well done, we will teach you about the sanctity of life yet
A plant is sentient because it can "feel" its environment; a fetus is sentient and sapient
the moment its conceived !!
Originally Posted by expat007 But consciousness is impossible without having senses. So you need senses to become self-aware, therefore they are inseparable.
If you have a conscience (brain) but have no senses at all (not even touch) you will be imprisoned in your own mind and very well might never become aware of yourself.
It seems that you've painted yourself into a corner here, in more than one way. Firstly, a fetus has a brain (conscience,as you put it) AND a nervous system (senses), and is therefore sentient by your own definition. Secondly, the fetus CAN survive outside of the womb at 27 weeks, and is therefore alive, again by your definition. Since, using your own definitions, the fetus IS alive and sentient, your two criteria for killing it being considered murder, you must support the protection of the fetus after 27 weeks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has always been important; being sentient is imo more important than being alive.
I have not modified my stance therefore your conclusion is simply wrong.
But consciousness is impossible without having senses. So you need senses to become self-aware, therefore they are inseparable. 
