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.
A few years ago, the State of New York announced that the laws had been changed so that late-term abortions were no longer criminalized. While I felt it was completely tasteless to mark the occasion with pink lights on One WTC because there is never anything to celebrate about abortion, I was apparently one of the few people who bothered to read up on what this actually meant while most people screamed and rent their garments over the "fact" that one was now allowed to kill a full-term fetus.
The real story was best demonstrated by a woman who had discovered when she was near term that her fetus had a condition so severe that it would not survive more than a few hours after birth. Rather than wait until she went into labor, delivered, and watch the newborn suffer and die, her doctors determined that the best thing to do would be to euthanize the fetus and induce labor with all the drugs needed to keep the mother from feeling anything the way they do when a fetus has already died in the womb.
This could not be done in New York, where the woman lived, because that procedure was illegal there, so the woman had to fly out to Colorado where it was legal to have this done.
The law moved the issue from a legal matter to a health matter so that the next woman in this terrible situation would not have to add a 2000-mile plane trip to have done what was necessary.
Yes, there are still going to be a percentage of people who call this playing God and believe that she should have just waited, delivered and watched the baby die naturally, but from a health and common sense perspective and for the mother's emotional well-being, it makes sense to most people. Fortunately, such cases are not common.
What it does NOT mean is that a woman about to deliver a healthy child will be able to sashay into her OB/GYN and demand that the fetus be killed. To suggest that this would be the case is disingenuous.
I applaud you for pointing out what poor taste is on display regarding the spectacle of celebration! Now, if only we could all agree on how late term abortions go so far beyond the point of poor decorum, we’d really be making some progress.
Also, you might want to actually read the contents of the legislation yourself, rather than be taken in by stories and allegories that are transparently and materially untrue relative to the claims about what the legislation actually does, or the legitimacy of the objections of those who opposed it. The claim that the legislation was put forth for the purpose of resolving such “problems” alluded to in your cited example is simply not true, and as you yourself suggested, such situations are not very common, and not a legitimate justification for such radical legislation.
For those who might not be up to speed on the details, basically, the legislation made three very significant changes to the then current NY Abortion laws. The first was in changing the language which restricted late term abortions (post 24 weeks gestation) from situations posing a “threat to the mothers life’ to the the deliberately vague and deceptive language of posing a “threat to the health of the mother”. The truth is, the change is basically is a blank check, because that applies to any and all pregnancies, given that every one of them can theoretically pose a “threat to a mothers health”. This one change, all by itself made abortion on demand up to the moment of birth legally available to all, with no restrictions whatsoever. That’s the fact of the matter, and not debatable. Any claims otherwise are completely false.
The second biggest change was removing abortion from the criminal code, and placing it under the health department code, basically removing any possibility of criminal prosecution, under any circumstances. This effectively created a free for all related to abortion, with no criminal consequence, no matter how egregious an act might be committed. And when it comes to late term abortions, there are countless stories of the most evil and sinister actions one can imagine committed by those performing these “procedures”, stories so despicable, I won’t even offer the details of some of them here. Now, this legislation offers total immunity to the criminal psychopaths who commit such atrocities, and that is an outrage all by itself.
And the third big change was allowing NP’s, PA’s, and Midwives to also perform abortions, whereas previously only Medical Doctors could perform them. Therefore, psychopaths one and all can now come to NY, because it’s baby season, year round, and open to everyone in the medical field. Holy Pharmakeia Batman, who let Satan loose in Gotham City?
All in all, the legislation is a total abomination, and could not possibly be more evil, even if Lucifer himself penned the bill in baby’s blood. The law effectively says … if you want an abortion, or want to perform abortions, NY is the place to be, because anybody that wants one can have one, and anyone who wants to perform them can do so without restrictions or consequences.
So the above claim is not true …. that hypothetical woman CAN most definitely “sashay into her OB/GYN” and have the baby’s life ended on demand, right up to moment of birth, and that is an appalling fact. And now, she doesn’t even need to have the doctor do it …. NP’s can kill the baby, the nurse assistants can kill the baby … and midwives can kill the baby. The only ones not being granted specific permission to kill the baby are the lube techs down at the Jiffy Lube! But actually, since abortion no longer falls under the criminal code, I reckon anybody can kill the baby without worry of being charged with a crime. Want to sacrifice a child to Satan? Just go to NY, get the mothers permission, and call it an abortion! That’s what the legislation did, it made killing babies perfectly legal, so long as you call it an abortion.
Whatever opinion one may hold regarding the appropriateness of abortions in general .. that’s really not the argument here. This is about the inescapable horrors of late term abortions, which is the justification for restricting them in all but the most extreme and compelling circumstances. Those unavoidable horrors are of such an unconscionable and inhumane nature, that no person possessing a minimum measure of basic human compassion should argue against having clearly defined restrictions placed on them, with criminal consequences for those who might choose to violate those restrictions. The legislation does the exact opposite.
We should all be able to reach almost universal agreement on points like this, save for the few psychopaths among us who seem to embrace death, and despise life, but apparently that’s no longer possible anymore, even among rational people.
One problem with reaching those "universal agreements" you mentioned is the massive number of crackpot loons who are in charge of things. A few years ago a bill made it pretty far through congress that would have banned abortions nationwide after 20 weeks. The later ultrasounds, which are a way birth defects are detected, often occur between 18-22 weeks. That would have just about banned anyone's ability to get abortions due to the later-discovered birth defects...which would have been absolutely insane.
Yeah...I too would be fine with some sort of regulator of ultra late abortions...so long as it's not made by the crackpots who appear to have a great deal of power over most of these issues. If we get some crackpot law like a 20 week nationwide abortion ban that makes no exceptions for birth defects...I'd honestly rather just have zero restrictions whatsoever as an alternative, because some of our leaders are just to stupid to know what appropriate exceptions should be.
I have not read this law though...so I don't know exactly what it says.
You talk about "Evil and despicable acts" despite it being quite possible for abortion restrictions to be the equivalent of a means of state-enforced torture of women, that also injects incurable diseases into children. That's what the leaders of Texas want, apparently. They want to torture women, while forcefully injecting diseases into children, against the will of their parents. I assume it's not for their amusement. I am very confused about what other possible motivations they could have for such attempts though. Maybe psychopaths really do tend to be common in positions of power? That could be one explanation.
Or perhaps they're not true psychopaths...they just have a few psychopathic traits, such as narcissism, that prevents them from understanding that the world is not ruled by their comforting delusions. Narcissists are great at lying to themselves like that, from what I understand. They lie, and lie, and lie to themselves because they're too scared to admit that their comforting delusions about the nature of the world may not be true...and they hurt other people as a result, and they don't care. Now...they tell themselves they care. (narcissists always perceive themselves as the "good guys.") They don't actually care though. If they did, they'd think more about how reality really works.
They're not bad people, necessarily. They're just human...with human weaknesses. I don't think there's much humans love more than telling ourselves lies about how the world around us works, and pretending to live within our comfortingly fictional bubbles, even if it hurts people. I'd say we all do it, to some degree. I, for example, play videogames rather than helping starving African children. Meanwhile, pro-lifers do the same sort of thing when they lie to themselves about death always harming life forms, and whether pro-lifers are lying and harming society through their delusions, or whether I'm ignoring the plight of hungry African children so I can play videogames...it's all pretty much the same. We're all ignoring reality due to our greed, because that comforts us.
@Guy in Texas, so as not to have to quote your long post, while I do believe that very few real life women will indeed sashay in for a full-term abortion, and that very few doctors would be willing to kill a viable infant, yes, the possibility exists that this can happen, and I've no doubt it will. Hell, it probably has in the past even when there were criminal penalties. If it were up to me, there would have to be documentation as proof that the fetus was not viable and that otherwise there would be criminal charges against both parties. Of course documentation can be faked. I know someone who had a first-trimester abortion when she was 16 years old, a D&C in a nice, clean reputable hospital in an affluent town--in 1968.
Criminals are going to do what they want despite laws. I suspect, however, that given the monetary value of a healthy infant due to shortages for couples who cannot conceive, dollar signs would win over killing viable, healthy fetuses in most cases.
At any rate, overall, I still think the more dastardly scenarios will still be fewer than the truly heartbreaking ones that should not be subjected to criminal penalties.
I fully understand how people need to rationalize killing babies. I do.
If you lost something that did not exist, why were you sad? That makes no sense. It should have had no effect on you. Since it didn't exist, you would not have even known it was there.
But it was there. And it did exist. And it was lost. What are women pregnant with? Babies. Can't have one without the other. If you were pregnant, yes that was a baby, at whatever stage of development. Otherwise there was NOTHING to lose.
Why abortion? To ensure that the baby growing inside the woman is killed. Because someone is killed, it means that they existed.
That's the gaping hole in that argument.
I didn't say it didn't exist.
Of course it existed.
I saw it with my own eyes ffs.
What it was not was a BABY. It was a bunch of tissue. Not a baby. At some point it would have developed into a baby. But most abortions are performed on foetuses that are at not BABIES. Most spontaneous abortions happen when the foetus is not a baby, as much as someone might want a baby.
You keep arguing the merit of something I didn't say.
If you can choose to kill it I can sure damn choose to abandon it.
- D Chappelle
I think that this pretty much cut it.
If woman gets in charge of the matters of "life and death," without taking man's opinion in consideration, then she better be ready to raise that child on her own, without making man to pay for her decisions.
But then, again, the whole society has to operate then to support those mutual decisions economically, which is impossible in the capitalist society American style.
Because in America, everyone "pays" his/her own way of life, while at the same time "market" decides who is getting what job ( or not) and how much money one will be making ( or not) while raising this child.
So this agreement above while being fair, is simply unrealistic in America, the way it's set to operate.
Therefore with the whole concept of what woman's role should be in deciding life and death matter ( of unborn child) is just a concept, and there is no only one correct answer to it.
It depends whether one looks at it from the point of view of Christianity or the atheist approach.
But whatever it is, the socio-economics of society must support either concept.
And the atheist point of view ( and this includes women's vital decisions to act independently from man,) would point at rather Soviet-like society, where the socio-economics of the society were supporting this idea.
But not the "free market, everyone for himself" American economy, where the society never officially cancelled out the Christian background/beliefs of it.
The reason why I cited language as having anything to do with the worth of life is because I'd say that an organism requires language to think about the advanced concepts that can make us capable of being harmed by death in anything more than animalistic ways. I could be wrong about that. Also, I think you misinterpreted what I meant by "person." When I describe my definition of "personhood" I'm not talking about a concept I want laws based around. I'm merely talking about a category which I'd use to determine whether or not to personify an organism much.
I don’t recall mentioning “person” at all in my post. And since we were talking primarily about human beings, I do not consider humans as an “organism”. Sounds too much like an association to a bacteria, or a fungus, but it’s another insight into the inner workings of your mind, which views human beings as not being that special.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
We'd be best off veering away from that topic entirely, given how little significance my definition of "personhood" has on my actual views. The primary reason why I referenced my view of "personhood" in the first place was merely to emphasize that I don't think that humans are as unique as most people think they are.
Yes, I recall this point. You keep making it, and it is an indicator of the underlying issue here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
If you'd like to see some of my arguments that have considerably more to do with how I think life forms should be treated, you should read more of my prior posts. Here's the best, most concise, yet most encompassing one I can think of, in terms of a post that describes how I think we should treat and think about fetuses, and babies: https://www.city-data.com/forum/63238177-post139.html
I read it, and my immediate impression is that you are entitled to your opinions, but I’m far from moved by them, sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
Aside from that though...birds do not have the capacity for language, so far as I know because they do not
have the ability to use a finite number of symbols to communicate an infinite number of potential meanings. They appear to have a limited number of things they can say with their words...or at least they can't immediately spring entire new concepts into being as words as effortlessly as humans can...but even if I'm wrong, all that means is that there are fewer differences between humans and nonhumans and the original purpose I had for stating my definition of personhood was to talk about how I don't see many differences between humans and nonhumans, except in terms of traits they eventually develop.
How would you know birds don’t have the capacity for language? There seems to be a very distinct communication among them, while researchers have discovered some amazing attributes, such as the ability to solve problems and use tools. I had a Senegal parrot that called the other three animals in the household by their damned names …. two cats and a dog, and that bird knew each one by their bloody frigging names! And quite a few other things that proved beyond a doubt that as far as language is concerned, that bird had the capacity to communicate at a human 3 year old’s level. The dog might bark, and the bird would tell her “stop it, stop it!” One of the cats was named Lucy … and I sometimes called her Lucy-Lu …. Echo picked up on that, and sometimes she’d say “Lucy” … and sometimes she’s say “Lucy-Lu” The other cat was named Rufus, and much to my astonishment one day, we were out on the the deck, and Rufus came strolling out, and that freaking bird looked down at him and said in the clearest human voice you’ll ever here …. “Rufus the kitty cat!”. So don’t you even try to sell me this nonsense because I have direct experience with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
The point is that there being fewer differences between humans and nonhumans than I think there are should not impact my opinions on abortion. At most, it should impact my decisions regarding how we should treat nonhumans.
The differences between humans and animals are enormous, and it’s total foolishness to argue against something so obvious. That being said, the superiority humans possess over animals is no license to mistreat or abuse them, regardless of the multitude of excuses humans often use to justify it. And to blunt, while there are many humans that treat animals atrociously, inhumanly, and devilishly, there are other humans who dedicate their lives in trying to mitigate the damage other humans have inflicted, while treating all of the animals with the utmost love, respect and compassion that they deserve. And it is those latter humans I feel are especially valuable, with the former category being absolutely worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
Also, using human language is not what I'm talking about, necessarily. Just understanding human language does not necessarily mean having the ability to use a finite number of concepts to create an infinite number of potential meanings yourself. If you can't use a finite number of concepts to create an infinite number of potential meanings...I don't understand how an organism could comprehend death, or fully comprehend the future, or comprehend any of these existential concerns that makes most human life so different from most animal life.
I have no clue what the hell you are trying to say with this “use of finite number of concepts to create an infinite number of potential meanings”? That seems to define someone who is totally confused, having no ability to effectively communicate. For example, intelligence ought to be recognized by the ability to associate an infinite number of concepts with the appropriate corresponding meaning, such as “no” means STOP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
I would not be surprised at all if an organism can be conscious without having the ability to use language in any form. Even if they are conscious though, if they don't comprehend death, death itself can't harm them. I'd think you'd need language to really comprehend what death is, as well as have complex dreams for the future that really matter much to you if you miss out on them. Without that, I'd think, so long as it's painless, it's basically just falling into a deep sleep. That's also emphasizing that how I'd treat both fetuses and babies is best described through this link I referenced earlier, https://www.city-data.com/forum/63238177-post139.html
not through my definition of personhood...which I really only mentioned to explain how I don't see much difference between humans and nonhumans...which you, actually, seem to have shared my opinions about, if not viewed there being even less of a difference between humans and nonhumans than I do...so I figure you must either be quite the radical vegan or vegetarian, or just fine with abortion in at least many circumstances or your thought process confuses me.
This is where you are WAY OFF THE RAILS here. First, it’s irrelevant what future aspirations may be conceived or never contemplated when measuring the harm death represents. You can be the most aware, most sentient being ever to exist, with the greatest aspirations ever, yet someone could sneak up behind you, and put a bullet into the back of your head, and you could die instantly and painlessly, but does that make it less harmful? Does the lack of awareness or absence of pain eliminate the ultimate loss of one’s life? By the same measure, obviously, babies in the womb could not possibly meet those criteria, yet losing their lives eliminate all potential their lives may have had in store, none of which could be known to either the baby, or someone like you pontificating on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
I specifically stated that I would consider eating a baby over eating an adult dolphin...not that I'd eat a baby at my "backyard barbeque."
Well, does it really matter? I think the relevant and rather sick point is the choice of which one you’d eat. The problem is not the venue, it’s the menu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
Baby language is not language, according to the descriptions of language I've been making, so far as I know...not that it matters a whole lot, because again, pretty much the only reason I mentioned my definition of personhood was to emphasize that I don't think there are inherent differences between humans and nonhumans. I'd just like to emphasize that point, which is why this is the third time I've mentioned that in this post.
Rest easy … you have driven that point into the ground. Emphasis successful
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
Granted, I would consider it reasonable for you to have misinterpreted the original intended context of the post you were referring to...but now you know its true context. I hope that clears up some things. I do not want laws changed based on my definition of "personhood." I want laws changed based on different considerations than that...such as in that link I posted twice earlier. "Personhood" is a fairly crappy, nearly useless concept to discuss, in my opinion. I would not view dolphins as worthy of protection because I might consider them "people." I consider them worthy of protection due to their specific traits.
So there are specific traits that you appreciate in adult dolphins which you deem more worthy of protection than that of a human baby which you would choose to “eat” if forced to choose between the two? You haven’t really defined what those comparisons might entail, and frankly, I would prefer that you don’t. I’d rather you discuss that with someone more qualified than I to help you sort that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintnon
One reason why there would be the time limit on when the euthanization of babies would be illegal (keeping in mind that I've only argued that it should be legal when the baby is afflicted with some severe ailment, or when a strong argument could be made that euthanization would benefit the baby more than continued life) would be that at some point the child would gain some form of understanding of death that would enable them to be harmed by it...and I'm thinking that would have something to do with language.
Finally, we’ve reached a point where we can find some common ground, yet there is still this impasse. The perception of harm or lack thereof, has absolutely no bearing on the actual harm done. That’s the point, and that’s why children rely on adults to keep them safe, keep them protected, and keep them out of harms way, because children have not yet attained the knowledge, experience and wisdom necessary to determine what might be a threat, or what harm might be incurred. This is basic common sense.
It does not matter if a child or a baby perceives the nature of life and death, because we already know they do not. That’s why it is our responsibility as adults to make the proper choices for them, which includes protecting them from those who wish to terminate their lives before they even get the chance to live one minute of it.
I have had a miscarriage at around 11 weeks. You can romanticise foetal development if you like, that’s your prerogative, but I can tell you from lived experience that the material expelled was most certainly not a baby.
Now did we mourn the loss of that lost foetus’ potential to have become our child, and the promise and joy of that? Yes.
Did we mourn the loss of that exact material? Well no, not really, because that very undeveloped human had had no lived life, no sentient thought, no brain, and no connection to any kind of life as defined by living breathing people. We mourned the loss of the pregnancy, not the actual foetus. Some people may not see it that way, but my point here is that it’s very personal and you don’t get to dictate at what stage a woman considers her pregnancy to be a baby. That’s your opinion.
So you mourned the loss you personally experienced, as in the experience you had anticipated would provide you with some personal benefit, or some personal sense of accomplishment, or some personal form of pleasure. I get it. And that’s altogether reasonable, if also a bit self centered. Truth is, it’s probably more common than most people might believe, that people seek to have children from a perspective of their own ego, as an extension of themselves, rather than the desire to simply embrace a new life created, and the rewards of the bond between parent and child. We are drowning in a tidal wave of narcissism these days.
But just for the record, we aren’t really debating the issue of 11 week old fetuses … we’re talking about post 24 week, late term abortions, and it’s a bit of a different matter:
But here is a 12 week old “fetus”, with defined legs and arms, hands, fingers, head, mouth, nose and eyes, and a detectable heart beat.
Next, we see just weeks later, a well formed, unmistakably human baby
This is a baby at 20 weeks gestation….. it’s not a “fetus”, nor a clump of “material”. It’s a human baby, sucking his thumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
You can decide not to kill, or kill, your own baby when it’s in your own uterus- if you insist on framing it that way - if other women want to terminate an early stage pregnancy that they don’t consider a baby, then that’s their choice.
Again, this issue isn’t about early stage abortions … it’s about late stage abortions. The other disconnect we have here is the legitimacy of declaring one’s right of choice to kill …. of when it is ok to kill another human being out of personal choice. Who grants such a right, and when does that right cease to exist? Is it 20 weeks, 24 weeks, 32 weeks? Or does this right exist right up to the moment the baby begins it’s exit from the womb? What about two weeks after the baby is out of the womb? Is there that big a difference between a baby inside the womb 36 weeks old, compared to a 38 week old outside the womb? Does two weeks make all the difference in the world? Or is that just another lame rationalization?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t sad. And I would meet you half way if you didn’t keep insisting early stage feotuses were “babies” that embryos were “babies”. I’ve had a baby and I can assure you the two are not comparable.
Clearly, the image above at 12 weeks is not a freaking avocado! It’s not a trout. Nor is it an armadillo…. it is in fact a human baby … it is a human, and can be nothing else other than a human baby. The difference between 12 weeks and 20 weeks is just a measure of time, but does not change the fundamental reality that what is a clearly human baby at 20 weeks, was just as clearly a human baby at 12 weeks, unless of course you can explain to us how it could have experienced some metamorphosis and become something else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
Once the foetus has reached the stage where it’s viable outside the womb, then I think it’s perfectly appropriate to have rigorous debate about and discussions on the baby. I am of the personal opinion that the woman and her doctor should decide what to do should an abortion be recommended after that, not the state, and most certainly not intractable pro life zealots.
How big of you to concede the legitimacy of rigorous debate when contemplating killing children, yet at the same time suggest such debate ACTUALLY be a matter decided between the woman and her doctor? What kind of rigor exists in that debate? Good lord.
By the way, replacing the term baby with the term fetus does not alter the fact that it’s a baby. It’s just a term utilized by death zealots who would prefer to dehumanize the baby, so as to make it more palatable to kill it. Nevertheless, it’s a choice being made to kill a baby … one’s own baby, at that. And while the rest of the natural world sees the ferociousness most females exhibit in protecting their offspring, it seems that human females are unique in their choices to kill their offspring as a matter of personal convenience.
What does that say about some human females? It says a lot, and none of it is very flattering.
So you mourned the loss you personally experienced, as in the experience you had anticipated would provide you with some personal benefit, or some personal sense of accomplishment, or some personal form of pleasure. I get it. And that’s altogether reasonable, if also a bit self centered. Truth is, it’s probably more common than most people might believe, that people seek to have children from a perspective of their own ego, as an extension of themselves, rather than the desire to simply embrace a new life created, and the rewards of the bond between parent and child. We are drowning in a tidal wave of narcissism these days.
But just for the record, we aren’t really debating the issue of 11 week old fetuses … we’re talking about post 24 week, late term abortions, and it’s a bit of a different matter:
But here is a 12 week old “fetus”, with defined legs and arms, hands, fingers, head, mouth, nose and eyes, and a detectable heart beat.
Next, we see just weeks later, a well formed, unmistakably human baby
This is a baby at 20 weeks gestation….. it’s not a “fetus”, nor a clump of “material”. It’s a human baby, sucking his thumb.
Again, this issue isn’t about early stage abortions … it’s about late stage abortions. The other disconnect we have here is the legitimacy of declaring one’s right of choice to kill …. of when it is ok to kill another human being out of personal choice. Who grants such a right, and when does that right cease to exist? Is it 20 weeks, 24 weeks, 32 weeks? Or does this right exist right up to the moment the baby begins it’s exit from the womb? What about two weeks after the baby is out of the womb? Is there that big a difference between a baby inside the womb 36 weeks old, compared to a 38 week old outside the womb? Does two weeks make all the difference in the world? Or is that just another lame rationalization?
Clearly, the image above at 12 weeks is not a freaking avocado! It’s not a trout. Nor is it an armadillo…. it is in fact a human baby … it is a human, and can be nothing else other than a human baby. The difference between 12 weeks and 20 weeks is just a measure of time, but does not change the fundamental reality that what is a clearly human baby at 20 weeks, was just as clearly a human baby at 12 weeks, unless of course you can explain to us how it could have experienced some metamorphosis and become something else?
How big of you to concede the legitimacy of rigorous debate when contemplating killing children, yet at the same time suggest such debate ACTUALLY be a matter decided between the woman and her doctor? What kind of rigor exists in that debate? Good lord.
By the way, replacing the term baby with the term fetus does not alter the fact that it’s a baby. It’s just a term utilized by death zealots who would prefer to dehumanize the baby, so as to make it more palatable to kill it. Nevertheless, it’s a choice being made to kill a baby … one’s own baby, at that. And while the rest of the natural world sees the ferociousness most females exhibit in protecting their offspring, it seems that human females are unique in their choices to kill their offspring as a matter of personal convenience.
What does that say about some human females? It says a lot, and none of it is very flattering.
Yeah, that post you are referring to is chilling. I've said upthread that I'm reluctantly pro-choice, very reluctantly I might add, but some of this stuff I've seen in this thread has been jaw dropping.
I'm not saying that that poster is a sociopath as I don't want to violate TOS but there was a very odd sociopathic detachment from societal "norms" shall we say.
If were being really completely honest here, I think that the pro choice crowd basically wants to keep pregnancy from being a problem. People wanna screw around and not have to worry about raising a kid if hey don't want to.
I think that the vast majority of abortions are simply the rubber busted and I don't want a problem on my hands versus some real actual medical need to not carry a pregnancy to full term.
We already know that 95% of all unintended pregnancies are due to VOLUNTARY participation in unprotected sex (CDC). It's just flat out irresponsibility with their own reproductive health, not oops... the condom broke.
I don’t recall mentioning “person” at all in my post. And since we were talking primarily about human beings, I do not consider humans as an “organism”. Sounds too much like an association to a bacteria, or a fungus, but it’s another insight into the inner workings of your mind, which views human beings as not being that special.
Humans are not an organism. Humans are organisms though. I assume that's what you mean. If you do not consider humans to be organisms...fine...use whatever odd semantic preferences you wish. I do not especially care. Just know that you're going to confuse everyone else on Earth...literally everyone. You might as well say you don't define humans as being life forms. Either way, you're saying about the same thing. If you're concerned about the word "organism" dehumanizing human life...I would retain the view that humans are "organisms" but just emphasize that you'd prefer them described as both organisms and humans, rather than merely organisms. That'll at least keep the scientists from looking at you as if you've just sprouted a second head.
Aside from that though...you didn't have to use the word "person" you were describing my description of what a person was.
And actually...I do view human beings as special...once they develop certain traits. Before that they're animals...in all relevant contexts except for semantics. Now, they're not just animals to most humans who are responsible to them...but we can say the same thing about people's pets. People's pets are often viewed as family members too. It's that same kind of deal although in greater degrees.
But basically the only thing that separates babies from animals is the same thing that separates most animals from most people's pets: how their parents/caretakers feel about them.
That said, the fact that they will become organisms who are different from most animals means they should be treated differently from most animals...but if their lives are ended, that's not especially relevant, because they never will.
Quote:
Yes, I recall this point. You keep making it, and it is an indicator of the underlying issue here.
I read it, and my immediate impression is that you are entitled to your opinions, but I’m far from moved by them, sorry.
I don't care if you're "moved" by my opinions or not. I posted that link because you had expressed an interest in discussing how I believe human life forms should be treated by commenting. Therefore, I linked you to a more appropriate source for my opinions about how I believe human life should be treated.
Quote:
How would you know birds don’t have the capacity for language? There seems to be a very distinct communication among them, while researchers have discovered some amazing attributes, such as the ability to solve problems and use tools. I had a Senegal parrot that called the other three animals in the household by their damned names …. two cats and a dog, and that bird knew each one by their bloody frigging names! And quite a few other things that proved beyond a doubt that as far as language is concerned, that bird had the capacity to communicate at a human 3 year old’s level. The dog might bark, and the bird would tell her “stop it, stop it!” One of the cats was named Lucy … and I sometimes called her Lucy-Lu …. Echo picked up on that, and sometimes she’d say “Lucy” … and sometimes she’s say “Lucy-Lu” The other cat was named Rufus, and much to my astonishment one day, we were out on the the deck, and Rufus came strolling out, and that freaking bird looked down at him and said in the clearest human voice you’ll ever here …. “Rufus the kitty cat!”. So don’t you even try to sell me this nonsense because I have direct experience with this.
As I emphasized in my last post...as far as this thread is concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not I know that birds don't have the capacity for language. I'm not going to talk about what can, and can't use language much more unless you can think of a good way that has something to do with this topic. I suggest we drop it. If you're interested in a prolonged discussion about what organisms can, and cannot use language, I suggest beginning a thread about it in the science forum. If I see it, I'll talk to you about it for days. It'll be fascinating. This has nothing to do with politics though, so far as I can tell. I did bring it up first...but within a pretty narrow context which I think we're moving away from.
It especially has nothing to do with politics because, as I mentioned before, even if I'm wrong about birds not having the capacity for language...that just means you're closer to agreeing with my central point that there's not much inherently different, if anything, between humans and nonhumans.
Quote:
The differences between humans and animals are enormous, and it’s total foolishness to argue against something so obvious. That being said, the superiority humans possess over animals is no license to mistreat or abuse them, regardless of the multitude of excuses humans often use to justify it. And to blunt, while there are many humans that treat animals atrociously, inhumanly, and devilishly, there are other humans who dedicate their lives in trying to mitigate the damage other humans have inflicted, while treating all of the animals with the utmost love, respect and compassion that they deserve. And it is those latter humans I feel are especially valuable, with the former category being absolutely worthless.
One of my favorite speakers, cognitive scientist and philosopher Daniel Dennet once talked about how oftentimes when people use the word "surely" they're trying to convince themselves that they are sure of something, as much as other people, and what it generally means is that they're not actually sure of themselves. Given that you never even tried to make an argument for why humans are inherently different than nonhumans...I'm pretty confident that's what you're doing here.
It's quite obvious that humans are identical in all relevant ways to just about all other organisms until they develop the traits that make them (mostly) unique...although bottlenose dolphins could be very similar. Anyone who disagrees with that has a bafflingly skewed view of reality that I suspect is so backwards that even they won't know how to explain it...which is why I'm suspecting you haven't made the attempt.
I would very much appreciate hearing whatever fumbling attempts you'd be willing to make to convince me that a human four week old embryo is different from a sheep four week old embryo in any relevant way. The only ways I can think of that you might be able to make coherent arguments would be you arguing that humans have some sort of "soul" (which I would have some strong arguments against) or by saying humans will become special as they grow, and you viewing future differences as important (which, while technically true, I'll have some strong arguments against that being especially relevant in regards to the topic of abortion).
Until then I'll just say...no...humans are obviously not inherently special. In a more clear-minded society any alternative opinions would be so foolish as to not be worth discussing. We do not live in that society though, so we should probably discuss that as a society so as to enlighten all the people who are clearly wrong, such as yourself.
But, if you'd prefer to keep telling yourself that humans are inherently special...similarly to how one might look at a red pen and repeat "this pen is blue" for whatever reasons they feel like doing that, until they perceive the red pen as actually being blue...that's fine with me. We don't have to discuss this any further than you want.
Regarding your claim that you consider people who mistreat animals to be worthless...I don't believe you...especially if you eat at McDonald's. Now, I eat at McDonald's, but I'm not the one saying people who mistreat animals are worthless.
I suspect what you're most likely thinking of is people who mistreat dogs and cats and the fluffy animals we find cute...probably while eating a hamburger.
Now, I do have an uncle who hunts and fishes. I love deer meat. Fish may not feel pain in the way humans experience it, based on my understandings, and hunting reduces the deer population and prevents them from dying to disease, so you could argue that that actually does deer a service...so if that's the only meat eating you do, then you can feel free to condemn the rest of us.
Otherwise, you're basically in the same boat as us all. I'll place the dog-kickers as lower than us...but they're not really that much lower.
Quote:
I have no clue what the hell you are trying to say with this “use of finite number of concepts to create an infinite number of potential meanings”? That seems to define someone who is totally confused, having no ability to effectively communicate. For example, intelligence ought to be recognized by the ability to associate an infinite number of concepts with the appropriate corresponding meaning, such as “no” means STOP.
Having the ability to uses a finite number of symbols to communicate an infinite number of meanings is what our alphabet does. We have a limited number of letters. We can merge them together in different ways to communicate an infinite number of potential meanings. From what I understand, other animals than humans have words...but at least most of them lack the ability to make sentences. For example, I can say "The cat sat on the mat" or rearrange that order to be "The mat sat on the cat." Most species (aside from maybe bottlenose dolphins) don't appear able to do that. They'll have one word that might mean "predator" or a specific type of predator. They might have another word that means "I'm friendly." They're not going to be able to link those terms together into more complex concepts though. They'll have a finite number of words too...basically...they'll be able to expand that, although it'll be a far slower expansion than human language is capable of expanding. Nonhuman species, therefore, appear not to have the capacity for language (aside from maybe bottlenose dolphins, so far as I know).
But let's move past this topic. I only mentioned that because I don't think that above statement warrants much more discussion about this topic.
Quote:
This is where you are WAY OFF THE RAILS here. First, it’s irrelevant what future aspirations may be conceived or never contemplated when measuring the harm death represents. You can be the most aware, most sentient being ever to exist, with the greatest aspirations ever, yet someone could sneak up behind you, and put a bullet into the back of your head, and you could die instantly and painlessly, but does that make it less harmful? Does the lack of awareness or absence of pain eliminate the ultimate loss of one’s life? By the same measure, obviously, babies in the womb could not possibly meet those criteria, yet losing their lives eliminate all potential their lives may have had in store, none of which could be known to either the baby, or someone like you pontificating on it.
I made a lengthy comment relating to this topic here. Discussing this topic involves more abstract reasoning than discussing most topics I've discussed so far, and a particular type of abstract reasoning most people find baffling. I would not be surprised at all if we'd continue to disagree about this if we kept discussing it for weeks...because I've continued to disagree with other people after having discussed this topic with them for weeks.
Nevertheless, if you have the strength of will to dive down this discussion that will probably lead nowhere (despite me being confident that I'm correct and you are not) here's that post of mine that may help you to understand how I see things. Don't feel pressured to read it...or really, even to continue this discussion at all. It'll end up most likely just consuming a lot of time you could have likely spent on better things, and going nowhere:
The shorter version of that would be, I'm thinking...can be summed up by me saying you've not explained why death is inherently harmful, and I would argue that the main difference between me being shot painlessly in the back of the head and an abortion is that, were it legal to shoot me in the back of the head, our society would live in a state of fear and chaos due to our understanding of death...which a fetus doesn't have. It's not the death that would harm me itself. Death is merely transferring from being to unbeing. Death isn't inherently a negative thing. It's the fact that I don't want to die, and that me being killed being more likely would make my life more miserable.
I think we should judge the difference between right and wrong based on how much pleasure and how little suffering an action results in. I don't think there is any other rational way to judge the difference between right and wrong. There is nothing about death that consistently results in suffering. Therefore death is not inherently a negative thing, so far as I can tell. It is for most of we self-aware humans...but that's because we comprehend the future and death enough to lose something from it that's of relevance to us.
and yeah...I agree that babies in the womb would not possibly meet those criteria, which is why, while they may be harmed by physical suffering stemming from abortion, they are immune to any harms from death itself. They are animalistic in that way. Death really doesn't exist to the vast majority of organisms on Earth. Self-aware humans...a few social mammals and birds who might miss their buddies when they die but still likely don't comprehend the prospect of their own death itself...just us and possibly bottlenose dolphins, if they understand language, are about the only exceptions I can think of. Death is a concept that more or less just exists for self-aware human beings.
Quote:
Well, does it really matter? I think the relevant and rather sick point is the choice of which one you’d eat. The problem is not the venue, it’s the menu.
I think it definitely matters...especially given how "superior" to animal life you've described humans as being. The dolphin would quite possibly have much more to lose from death than the baby. Most people don't understand that. That's why it was useful to bring that topic up. People will continue to wreak havoc on society until they understand that. They will continue to harm fetuses by believing they are harmed by death as much as adults are until they understand that it's not being human that makes life worthwhile...it's the mental traits we have that make it worthwhile...which dolphins may have, and fetuses (and babies up to at least a year...probably a lot older, typically) definitely don't.
You can harm an organism by not ending its life. If a 16 year old girl gets pregnant, but doesn't get an abortion, the ramification of that is that the baby was raised by a 16 year old, which has its likely disadvantages. Alternatively, if the 16 year old gets an abortion but has a baby when she's 23, and that abortion was early enough to be painless, the end result is a baby being raised by a 23 year old, which likely lacks the disadvantages of being raised by a 16 year old. Therefore, we might as well look at that scenario as if the 23 year old who'd gotten an abortion at 16 just teleported the fetus into the future, and had it at 23, with zero disadvantages to the fetus/baby, if no pain was involved. Even if pain was involved for the fetus you could probably make an argument that might be worth it, just from the perspective of what's best for the child, not even considering the woman's rights over her own body.
So...you call my statement sick. I think it's considerably sicker to have the rulers in Texas wanting to, essentially. torture women while injecting children with incurable diseases...because that's exactly happens when they try to ban abortion too early for abortions due to genetic disorders and birth defects to occur. Your state's leaders have given me much more reason to suspect that psychopaths veer towards positions of power. They clearly only either care about keeping their jobs to appease the ignorant masses, or maintaining their comforting delusional worldviews regardless of who those worldviews harm...or maybe they're just typical ignorant humans. Either way, their behaviors are certainly similar to those of what I'd suspect clinically diagnosed psychopaths would do.
My statements on this thread have been an attempt to argue against that type of greater sickness...so I don't think it matters how sick they are.
Quote:
Rest easy … you have driven that point into the ground. Emphasis successful
So there are specific traits that you appreciate in adult dolphins which you deem more worthy of protection than that of a human baby which you would choose to “eat” if forced to choose between the two? You haven’t really defined what those comparisons might entail, and frankly, I would prefer that you don’t. I’d rather you discuss that with someone more qualified than I to help you sort that out.
Those traits are the ability to be harmed by death through potentially understanding it. It's not hugely relevant whether or not dolphins have those traits...so much as what those traits are, and what stages of human life have them, and do not.
Quote:
Finally, we’ve reached a point where we can find some common ground, yet there is still this impasse. The perception of harm or lack thereof, has absolutely no bearing on the actual harm done. That’s the point, and that’s why children rely on adults to keep them safe, keep them protected, and keep them out of harms way, because children have not yet attained the knowledge, experience and wisdom necessary to determine what might be a threat, or what harm might be incurred. This is basic common sense.
It does not matter if a child or a baby perceives the nature of life and death, because we already know they do not. That’s why it is our responsibility as adults to make the proper choices for them, which includes protecting them from those who wish to terminate their lives before they even get the chance to live one minute of it.
The perception of harm does have a bearing on whether or not harm was done...but I've gone over that already. See my above comments about society collapsing into chaos and fear if murder was legal and such.
Also you say "Before they even get the chance to live for one minute." You have no reason to perceive that minute of life as being inherently beneficial. Life is not a gift. In fact, it's totally impossible for coming into existence to benefit a life form. That doesn't mean life is necessarily a negative thing...but life can't ever benefit from coming into existence, because before it existed no organism existed to benefit from coming into existence. The only rational reason to create new life is to assist existing life. We create new life for selfish reasons...and I think that's okay. We can make up for that by giving the life forms good lives, but we've got to stop believing we're doing some sort of favor to life by bringing it into existence. It loses nothing from never existing...and if it doesn't comprehend death before it dies, and it dies painlessly, that's basically identical to the life form never existing and therefore losing nothing from death.
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.
