View on abortion

[Selena_Kitt]

Now comes the question of whether a clone is a sentient being and when it becomes one?

who has the rubber chicken?

 

[BlackSnake]

Add "intuition" to that and I'm with ya...

Don't know much about that. My instincts are how I feel. I have no idea about forsights.

I feel that my desire to have sex is an instintive feeling to reproduce. Only a woman can accept my seed and produce life.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And only men can initiate that seed.

 

[BlackSnake]

Now comes the question of whether a clone is a sentient being and when it becomes one?

Only a woman can bring human life into the world.

 

[BlackSnake]

And only men can initiate that seed.

We agree, right?

 

[zeb1094]

Only a woman can bring human life into the world.

So if I can clone myself in a vat of nutrients, my alter-ego would not be considered life as we know it? Only because a woman did not bare him?

Now you want your cake and eat it too!

 

[BlackSnake]

So if I can clone myself in a vat of nutrients, my alter-ego would not be considered life as we know it? Only because a woman did not bare him?

Now you want your cake and eat it too!

IF I had a million dollars to blow, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

But, for the sake of arguement. I would not consider a clone a human being as I know it.

 

[zeb1094]

IF I had a million dollars to blow, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

But, for the sake of arguement. I would not consider a clone a human being as I know it.

So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duct, swims like a duck it must be a goose?

We're closer to the fact than you may think! So the 'If' isn't all that big anymore!

 

[BlackSnake]

So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duct, swims like a duck it must be a goose?

We're closer to the fact than you may think! So the 'If' isn't all that big anymore!

It would be a clone. Not a horse or chicken, just a clone. If you kill it, it would be criminal damage to property, not murder.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

We agree, right?

There we do.

I will say that it has been both a frustrating and fun argument. As a philosopher, I find it both irritating and intriguing to hear the other side of everything from the essential nature of man to the role of the mother in relation to the child. Fundamentally, I have a world-view that makes me disapprove of abortion, but I will consider the possibility that the Supreme Court did well in allowing it- just in case the medical data changes (as, admittedly, it has a bad habit of doing).

 

[zeb1094]

It would be a clone. Not a horse or chicken, just a clone. If you kill it, it would be criminal damage to property, not murder.

And now the big question.

How can you be sure it was the clone you killed? I mean a clone is/would be my identical twin. How do you know it wasn't I that was killed?

 

[BlackSnake]

In conclusion, because its time to go home. I'm for human life. Oh, and my cats

 

[BlackSnake]

And now the big question.

How can you be sure it was the clone you killed? I mean a clone is/would be my identical twin. How do you know it wasn't I that was killed?

If I killed it or you, I would greive. I don't like destruction, but then again...if I killed you or it, it would be because there would have been no other way from stopping you from doing whatever it was that you were doing.

 

[BlackSnake]

seriously, I gotta go.

 

[Rope64]

It would be a clone. Not a horse or chicken, just a clone. If you kill it, it would be criminal damage to property, not murder.

Such an attitude would not seem stranger in the land of Egypt.

 

[elsol]

*burp*

The right to legally kill someone because they impede what I want in life... where do I sign up?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Rope64]

Try here.

 

[elsol]

Try here.

Been there, done that... the pay isn't so hot.

And the person, you have to kill gets to shoot back! (I think they think the shooting back is how they get to express their disapproval of your choice.)


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[matriarch]

I don't care when 'life' begins. As long as the 'life' is in MY body, it's my choice. And I don't really care if anyone wants to call it murder or whatever. MY body, MY choice.


And Snake -
Irreversible harm can be something like a young girl giving up her prospects for higher education and a good job for the rest of her life because she has to take care of a child that she can't afford, especially if the father is out of the picture for whatever reason.

And the added thought........far too many disown a young daughter when they find she is pregnant. Throw her out on the streets, she ends up having the baby she didn't want anyway, taken away by social services because she had no way of caring for it. Or at the worst scenario, she becomes ill from lack of food, proper healthcare, and loses the baby anyway, at great risk to herself. Melodramatic I admit, but quite possible. Where's the 'morality' in that outcome??

What a wonderfully compassionate society you would like to live in. The child ends up with foster parents (hopefully; if not, in an institution for the rest of its childhood), the mother ends up homeless, not finishing her education, crap job, another 'drain' on society.......what a perfect outcome.

It really is time that society moved into reality, and left the idealism for romantic Victorian paintings.

 

[LadyCibelle]

And the added thought........far too many disown a young daughter when they find she is pregnant. Throw her out on the streets, she ends up having the baby she didn't want anyway, taken away by social services because she had no way of caring for it. Or at the worst scenario, she becomes ill from lack of food, proper healthcare, and loses the baby anyway, at great risk to herself. Melodramatic I admit, but quite possible. Where's the 'morality' in that outcome??

What a wonderfully compassionate society you would like to live in. The child ends up with foster parents (hopefully; if not, in an institution for the rest of its childhood), the mother ends up homeless, not finishing her education, crap job, another 'drain' on society.......what a perfect outcome.

It really is time that society moved into reality, and left the idealism for romantic Victorian paintings.

Am I allowed to say that by saying this you've become my new hero of the year.

 

[Purple Sage]

I take the tack that the body in question belongs to the baby, not the mother, and no one is bothering to consult the child, are they? A 12 week old fetus is a human being, with a "soul", if you wish to call it that, and a right to live and grow up. It should not be punished for any crimes of his or her father (rape, for instance). NO ONE else owns the body of the fetus, with the accompanying right to terminate it. If I decide that I want to terminate my next-door neighbor's life for my own convenience, he would have every right to object and have me arrested. It's the same thing. That baby is as much a person with rights as my next-door neighbor.

Interestingly, the laws of most places do not consider the body in question to belong the baby. Children belong to adults in substantial legal ways until they reach the age of majority. This is an area of much contradiction, legally speaking: when seen as the victims of crimes, children are people; when their own volition is involved they are seen as non-persons, whose actions are the responsibility of their parent.

There is no reason to believe that 12 week old fetuses have 'souls'. Leaving aside the fact that there is no direct evidence for the existence of the soul, most of the worlds religions ascribe the implantation of the soul to birth or anywhere from 5 days to a year after. To say that a 12 week old fetus has a 'right' to live and grow up is an arbitrary assertion.

It's silly to talk about 'punishing' a fetus. Punishment occurs only in the context of self awareness and awareness of circumstance. There is no evidence a fetus has either of these. Merely saying that there is neurological activity doesn't cut it- I can put a chicken brain in a petri dish, hook it up to a battery and stimulate neurological activity. A 12 week old fetus has about as much chance of sustaining neurological activity on it's own as that chicken brain- and has less to think about. Almost none of the neurological connections in that fetus' brain will survive until birth- they are constantly forming and disrupting during brain growth. Shortly before birth, approximately 50% of the fetus' neurons will spontaneously die off- along with all their connections. Whatever thoughts a fetus might be having before this have little chance of continuity.

I don't know your next door neighbor, but I wonder if you've reflected on the whole notion of 'rights'. There is nothing absolute about them, they are conceptualized and granted by people in political institutions. However much people like to justify their rights as 'god-given', the fact is that rights are barely noticable features of most of the traditional religions of the world, and where they are mentioned or implied, they are very different from what we accept today in the West. Fetuses have rights only if we grant them rights- the question is whether we ought to. Personally, I think not.

 

[BlackSnake]

Home at last.

Traffic sucked, BTW.

Norajane, matriarch, and LadyCibelle I do disagree.

I want you to always have the ability and natural right to make decision about aborting or not. I disagree with abortion, but I would try to make you feel bad or obstruct your decision.

Norajane. It's a crock of shit about the education thing.

Why would anyone want to be apart of a family that would kick you out for making what they consider to be a mistake?

What kind of life can you ever hope to have if you are living it in fear?

I will always support your right to choose, but it would sadden me if you chose to abort for any other reason than to save your own life from death.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What's more important to me, anyway- Did any of this help you in writing your story, Blacksnake?
By the way, and somewhat related,
my husband and I were very willing to move his mistress in with us, if she'd desired to- she didn't. And we are godparents to her older son, who is a few months older than ours. I'd gladly accept godparent stus for the younger one as well, if she asked me.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Interestingly, the laws of most places do not consider the body in question to belong the baby. Children belong to adults in substantial legal ways until they reach the age of majority. This is an area of much contradiction, legally speaking: when seen as the victims of crimes, children are people; when their own volition is involved they are seen as non-persons, whose actions are the responsibility of their parent.

There is no reason to believe that 12 week old fetuses have 'souls'. Leaving aside the fact that there is no direct evidence for the existence of the soul, most of the worlds religions ascribe the implantation of the soul to birth or anywhere from 5 days to a year after. To say that a 12 week old fetus has a 'right' to live and grow up is an arbitrary assertion.

It's silly to talk about 'punishing' a fetus. Punishment occurs only in the context of self awareness and awareness of circumstance. There is no evidence a fetus has either of these. Merely saying that there is neurological activity doesn't cut it- I can put a chicken brain in a petri dish, hook it up to a battery and stimulate neurological activity. A 12 week old fetus has about as much chance of sustaining neurological activity on it's own as that chicken brain- and has less to think about. Almost none of the neurological connections in that fetus' brain will survive until birth- they are constantly forming and disrupting during brain growth. Shortly before birth, approximately 50% of the fetus' neurons will spontaneously die off- along with all their connections. Whatever thoughts a fetus might be having before this have little chance of continuity.

I don't know your next door neighbor, but I wonder if you've reflected on the whole notion of 'rights'. There is nothing absolute about them, they are conceptualized and granted by people in political institutions. However much people like to justify their rights as 'god-given', the fact is that rights are barely noticable features of most of the traditional religions of the world, and where they are mentioned or implied, they are very different from what we accept today in the West. Fetuses have rights only if we grant them rights- the question is whether we ought to. Personally, I think not.

I firmly disagree and uphold the existence of natural rights. That's my view on things. The current laws be damned. Legislation can and often should be repealed.
They are inconsistent, anyway. I would take Jefferson's view about "inalienable rights" over traditional religions any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

As to whether the unborn are "sentient", you are entitled to your beliefs. I remain convinced of the opinion that they have souls and are living, conscious beings with as much right to live as you or me. And as much as I favor the right to choose in most matters, I uphold the right to live as a superior and superseding one.

There are too many willing, adoptive parents to take matriarch's dark view of the future. Even so, I thought we were done with this topic. Oh, well, I have heard your points of view and you have heard mine. Neither of us is likely to be persuaded of the other's stance. Honor is satisfied, so let us let it go.

As Billy Dean sang, "There ain't no good guy, there ain't bad guy, there's only you and me, and we just disagree...."

 

[Weird Harold]

I will always support your right to choose, but it would sadden me if you chose to abort for any other reason than to save your own life from death.

The discussion so far with it's quibbling of the "law of Nature" and "natural rights, has made me realize that the question is not about pro-life or por-choice; the question is about a woman's right to self-defense..

As soon as the perm and egg combine and divide for the first time, there is a new individual witha unique DNA that is unquestionably alove. For the first nine-months or so of it's life, that organism is a parasite that cannot survive without it's host. When that individual has "rights" is a huge part of the debate.

But I doubt that anyone on either side of the abortion argument -- at least none that are any kind of tenuous contact with reality -- would deny that a woman, pregant or not has a legal right to use deadly force in defense of her life and in most jurisdictions, in defense of her money, property, and to injury short of life-threatening.

How is an abortion to for any reason that would constitute justification for using deadly force in self-defense against an adult different from killing an adult.

If it is justifiable to kill a mugger "in self-defense" to protect a paycheck, how is aborting a child in defense of a college fund different?

"Justifiable homicide in self-defense" is guaged on a case-by-case basis to distinguish it from Manslaughter and premeditated murder -- and it is legally possible to pre-meditate "self-defense" in rare circumastances; so premeditation can't be used as an argument against abortion as self-defense.

The only difference I can see between shooting a mugger to prevent death or injury and an abortion to prevent death or injury is that in the latter case there is more time to make a rational and reasoned decision with access to more information than the split-second decision to pull the trigger or not.