Sectorgame

Taristin wrote:Aldo ftw.

Ditto.

Grug wrote:Faulty analogy? I don't think so.

Is it really for society to decide who dies and who lives?

Regardless of whether we want it, they do anyways. Would you prefer some form of legal controls or not?

Premeditated murder, or murder with special circumstance (rape is the only one that comes to mind), are the only crimes still punishable by death. I often hear it said that the death penalty is not effective prevention. Well, dammit, prove it. Show me. I've never seen actual statistics on the subject. Not once. I began to doubt they existed several months ago.

The best argument I've ever heard was that murder is an act beyond reason, so consequences are meaningless...but then you've described only 2nd degree murder. Which isn't punishable by death.

My personal opinion is that the death penalty is currently applied too narrowly. The current application for murder is sound; but I would expand it to include repeat offenses for rape.

ngtm1r wrote:

Grug wrote:Faulty analogy? I don't think so.

Is it really for society to decide who dies and who lives?

Regardless of whether we want it, they do anyways. Would you prefer some form of legal controls or not?

Premeditated murder, or murder with special circumstance (rape is the only one that comes to mind), are the only crimes still punishable by death. I often hear it said that the death penalty is not effective prevention. Well, dammit, prove it. Show me. I've never seen actual statistics on the subject. Not once. I began to doubt they existed several months ago.

The best argument I've ever heard was that murder is an act beyond reason, so consequences are meaningless...but then you've described only 2nd degree murder. Which isn't punishable by death.

My personal opinion is that the death penalty is currently applied too narrowly. The current application for murder is sound; but I would expand it to include repeat offenses for rape.

It's probably impossible to have a definitive study on the death penalty due to the international variances in culture, demographics, etc. The American Psychological Association has stated there is no deterrent effect (http://www.nhcadp.org/american_psychological.htm), although I've not tracked down any specific studies as of yet (not looked much, tho).

Question is surely, does the death penalty kill innocent people? Because if it does, it's state sanctioned murder. And to me, one innocent live is worth the cost (if it is a greater cost, I don't know) of 100 murderers in prison for the rest of their lives, rather than dead.

aldo wrote:First, we see abortion compared to Nazi death camps, and the concept of allowing a choice parallelised to complicity in the holocaust. This is typical language, intended to ignore the principle arguement - what is life - and go straight to the demonisation process.

It's not demonization. It's drawing a legitimate comparison between two moral crises. Emotional, yes, but legitimate. On the one hand you had millions of undesirables gassed in death camps, and on the other hand you have millions of pregnacies unnaturally terminated through abortion.

I'd go so far as to say that the term feminazi is an insult to the Nazis. The Nazis slaughtered six million people who at least tried to escape. Abortions have killed forty million people (in the U.S. since 1973) who were completely, utterly defenseless.

Then we have the issue of a fertilized egg. It's completely wrong to assume fertilization will result upon a living child, as any doctor would tell you; all sorts of stuff can go wrong. Perhaps a anencephalic child, who is missing the top of their skull.

It's completely wrong to assume fertilization won't result in a living child. The vast majority of births produce healthy, normal babies. The odds of bearing a child with a birth defect, while notable, are extremely small.

That's precisely the sort of irrational justification people use for not flying on airplanes. Sure, you have a very small chance of having an accident. But the vast majority of flights take off and land safely.

Then we have the definition of human life as being genetic code; the problem is that that doesn't actually define being alive, just a blueprint for the formation of chemical components that eventually form the body. This is completely and utterly wrong, as a simple consideration of what is death will show; by that marker we are not dead until we decompose into nitrates. Uniquieness is in itself not a constitution of human life, as it would also entail any foetus with a genetic and fatal defect is somehow alive, right up to said point of total decomposition. Not to mention that it would reduce twins (shared identical DNA) to the status of a single living entity if used as a criteria for life.

Genetic code determines whether the fetus is human, not whether it is alive or not. A human is a human whether it's alive, dead, or decomposing. As for being alive or not, I addressed that from a scientific basis in my post on the previous page: it grows, it consumes food, and it reacts to stimuli.

And the extemely judgemental assumption that you know better what women would want - a choice or not - despite never being physically capable of being in that position. It's also factually wrong; there is absolutely no evidence to support increased depression post abortion, and that statement (of post abortion depression) in itself ignores post-natal depression.

A person can make a decent prediction of a person's behavior in a given stituation if he has enough points of comparison. It's called statistical sampling, or, more generally, an educated guess. For instance, even though I've never been in this situation, I can assume that if I was hanging from a cliff I'd try my hardest to climb back up.

As for your assertion that there's no evidence to support increased depression post-abortion, that's flat-out wrong. With a few minutes' search on Google, I could show you dozens of personal accounts of women who have had abortions and been depressed for years because of it. How many such incidents there are is certainly a valid question, but you can't deny their existence altogether.

Post-natal depression is irrelevant here, as those mothers have not had abortions.

We also have, of course, a welter of evidence that banning abortion only sends it into the back streets - excluding the well documented history of the UK and Ireland, take Nigeria. In Nigeria, abortion is illegal unless medically necessary to save the mother. Yet it has a higher death rate from botched abortions than African countries with legal abortions, and it's a key cause of maternal death - because people seek to drive it underground, leading to abortions being performed by desperate women by untrained 'doctors' using things like coat-hangers. Thanks to a lack of addressing this issue combined with proper family planning advice, abortion-banned Nigeria has more abortions per-person than any European country or the US.

This is completely irrelevant as to whether abortion is morally right or wrong. However, governments who outlaw abortion have the responsibility to see that it is well and truly outlawed (not "out of sight, out of mind") and that pregnant mothers have easy access to alternatives. I'm sure many of these mothers went underground to have abortions because they felt they had no other option - regardless of whether this was in fact the case.

ngtm1r wrote:

Grug wrote:Faulty analogy? I don't think so.

Is it really for society to decide who dies and who lives?

Regardless of whether we want it, they do anyways. Would you prefer some form of legal controls or not?

Premeditated murder, or murder with special circumstance (rape is the only one that comes to mind), are the only crimes still punishable by death. I often hear it said that the death penalty is not effective prevention. Well, dammit, prove it. Show me. I've never seen actual statistics on the subject. Not once. I began to doubt they existed several months ago.

The best argument I've ever heard was that murder is an act beyond reason, so consequences are meaningless...but then you've described only 2nd degree murder. Which isn't punishable by death.

My personal opinion is that the death penalty is currently applied too narrowly. The current application for murder is sound; but I would expand it to include repeat offenses for rape.

Your society does. The majority of the western world (Australia included) are strongly against capital punishment.
The fact that several other society's, some of which have existed much longer than america has, have abolished capital punishment doesn't phase you in the least?
Those decisions were made due to results of studies and the simple fact that killing a human is wrong, no matter what reason or excuse you give. It is a barbaric thought to me, that one's own government can put to death its own citizens.
To me, it just feels wrong.
I am grateful to be a citizen of a country that is against capital punishment.

Let me just say it: Goober FTW

aldo, no offense, but you sidestepped every point I was trying to make. In fact, maybe it's just me, but you sounded a hell of a lot like Kazan in his glory days, substituting ad hominem attacks and nitpicking for an actual dialogue on the topic. For example, like Goober just said, a fertilized egg's genetic code defines it as a form of human life. The "alive" bit is obvious to any biology major; it fits all of the traditional definitions of cellular life, just as any organism does (things like the need for nutrition, the ability to reproduce, response to stimuli, etc.). Also, as Goober mentioned, it's true that not every pregnancy may go right, but you can't form a guideline based on the exception to the rule. The majority of pregnancies result in the fertilized egg developing normally; that's the entire point of fertilization.

With regards to the Nazi comments, I wasn't attempting to offend anyone. I'll be the first to admit that they're meant for an emotional response; my emotions were running high when I wrote that post. It's a subject I feel very strongly about, since, as I said, I see it as the murder of 40 million innocents over the course of decades. If that doesn't draw mental comparisons to the Holocaust, what can? (As a little side note, you did the exact same thing by bringing up the Taliban, even though that really had nothing to do with the topic.) As for the lack of evidence on post-abortion syndrome, I don't know where you're finding your information, but I've heard it first-hand. I've heard women who've had abortions speak; I've heard the mental anguish and pain they went through for years afterwards. I've heard accounts from nurses who once worked for Planned Parenthood, telling of the despicable conditions and actions that were present every day in the clinic, and of their own participation in such actions. That's how I feel confident in the claims that I made; I took them directly from the source.

Flipside, I'm truly sorry if I did offend you. The last thing I want to be is judgmental. As I said, I think that abortion is one of the worst things for women; I think that it harms them in a way that none of us men will ever be able to fully comprehend. I have the deepest compassion for those women who felt that an abortion was their only option. I do want to make a comment on one thing you said that struck me, though. You mentioned the fact that, if you had had a child, there would be no one to adopt him, and he would be in foster care for a lot of his young life. You said you didn't want to subject him to that kind of life. Let me just put out this phrase as a general question: isn't a chance at any sort of life, the possibility that life may turn out better than you expect that it will, better than never having that chance at all?

No worries TG, I don't take offence at it any more, and just under a million abortions a year IS suggesting that there are far too many people taking abortion for granted, I'll accept that, considering the dangers to the reproductive system that is inherent in abortion, education and prevention will always be the preferred solution.

But it's like a dial, not a switch, imho, making abortion illegal is just flicking the switch 'Yes/No', it's the easiest way of looking at it from a lawmaking point of view, but is also the least accurate. If I were to look at it coldly, I'd say they need to work something like the 'strike' system, where, if you have to have an abortion, that's your lot, 1 abortion only, both because of the risk of to the person and as a message that responsiblity ultimately lay with the person involved and her partners. Even this doesn't account for every situation, but abortion IS a very difficult and painful experience, I will always love my child, even though I never met him/her. People, however, need to take responsibility for their own actions, make a mistake once and it's understandable, but if you fail to learn from that experience, then questions should be asked.

We often take the right to dispossess people of life, be it in a war, or capital punishment or even, to a lesser degree, 'Triage' in a disaster (It's very frequent in disaster situations for Doctors to have to leave those that are too seriously injured to pass as comforatbly as possible, simply to save the lives of less desperately injured people, it's one of the most difficult decisions a doctor can make, because it comes very close to breaking the oath, much like abortion in many ways.)

So, in summary, it should be the mothers choice first of all, but Doctors are not automatons, they are trained people with skills and an oath to uphold, and the government has a responsibility to the Doctors to make sure people are educated to the prevention of needing an abortion and the dangers involved, simply saying 'This is Bad' or even 'This is Good' is a very dangerous course to take.

I suppose it's like owning a gun, it's there and it can take a life if no other option is available, or you are threatened (in Sharon's case, the reason was medical more than anything else, there was mal-development in the foetus and it was starting to pose a risk to Sharon, had we not aborted not only would the baby most likely have not survived or been severely disabled, but it may well have damaged her womb as it grew) then you take the choice to use it, and the Police will understand that. If, however, every 6 months you shoot someone, questions would be asked.

Top Gun wrote:Let me just say it: Goober FTW

aldo, no offense, but you sidestepped every point I was trying to make. In fact, maybe it's just me, but you sounded a hell of a lot like Kazan in his glory days, substituting ad hominem attacks and nitpicking for an actual dialogue on the topic. For example, like Goober just said, a fertilized egg's genetic code defines it as a form of human life. The "alive" bit is obvious to any biology major; it fits all of the traditional definitions of cellular life, just as any organism does (things like the need for nutrition, the ability to reproduce, response to stimuli, etc.). Also, as Goober mentioned, it's true that not every pregnancy may go right, but you can't form a guideline based on the exception to the rule. The majority of pregnancies result in the fertilized egg developing normally; that's the entire point of fertilization.

The genetic code exists within every single human cell; it defines individuality, not life. A stillborn child has a unique genetic code. A brain dead, heart stopped patient has an individual genetic code. Neither qualifies as alive. Whilst accusing me of side-stepping, you've failed to address that this definition has no meaning in terms of evaluating a standard of 'death'.

Let's also examine the foetus with respect to a cell analogy. Firstly, there is no response to stimuli without brain function; that is blindingly obvious. Additionally, being unable to respond to stimuli as a categorisation of death would cause issues with comatose or unconscious people.

In terms of nutrition, a foetus is unable to survive externally of the body due to a lack of ability to feed itself; the foetus in the womb cannot survive as an individual; I'm not aware of any 'living' being that exists which is solely reliant upon a host organism to survive (even parasitical organisms laid within a host have a physical capbility to feed and extract nutrients; the foetus relies upon the mother to process food and deliver nutrients).

Also, the developing foetus cannot reproduce; reproduction involves the creation of a new individual entity, it is seperate from the cellular mitosis of a complex animal. Physically, we can't reproduce for over a decade post birth.

Furthermore, all these criteria would mean a virus is classed as alive; a virus can reproduce by inserting DNA into a host cell and forcing it to reproduce, it utilises the host cells processes to gain nutrition, and it can 'hide' itself within cell RNA in response to conditions.

Now, as far as the 'majority' goes, it's the 'majority'. Not all. So you can't make the blind assumption that every foetus will develop fully to term.

In any case, it should be a moot point; we cannot deal with assumptions about future events in evaluating the present; that reaches straight back to the cell-and-the-egg situation. An egg, if fertilized, will develop into a child by your standards - does that make it wrong to remove it? A sperm, if it reaches an egg, will have the same effect - is a vasectomy wrong?

Perhaps more relevantly, is a foetus definable as a huamn life if it is uncapable of independent biological survival and operation as a human being?

And do you have a right to say your opinion on this, your definition of life as a cell with unique DNA, is right to be forced upon the entire population, whilst being contrary to medical agreement? Moreso, how does that 'unique DNA' related to twins? All that DNA is identifies a method of building an organism.

The UK legal period for abortion is up to 24 weeks, this defined as the point of an individual human consciousness (ala Descartes); it's worth noting that whilst it is possible for a child to be born at this age, it's rare for it to survive; only 10% leave hospital at 24 and 1% at 23 weeks, and many of these are severely brain damaged. The vast minority have abortions at this stage, in any case (note; abortions > 24 weeks are allowed in exceptional circumstances to prevent physical or mental harm to the mother).

If there was to be solid medical evidence supporting an earlier development of consciousness, than it would be a good idea to down-revise these age limits, of course.

With regards to the Nazi comments, I wasn't attempting to offend anyone. I'll be the first to admit that they're meant for an emotional response; my emotions were running high when I wrote that post. It's a subject I feel very strongly about, since, as I said, I see it as the murder of 40 million innocents over the course of decades. If that doesn't draw mental comparisons to the Holocaust, what can? (As a little side note, you did the exact same thing by bringing up the Taliban, even though that really had nothing to do with the topic.) As for the lack of evidence on post-abortion syndrome, I don't know where you're finding your information, but I've heard it first-hand. I've heard women who've had abortions speak; I've heard the mental anguish and pain they went through for years afterwards. I've heard accounts from nurses who once worked for Planned Parenthood, telling of the despicable conditions and actions that were present every day in the clinic, and of their own participation in such actions. That's how I feel confident in the claims that I made; I took them directly from the source.

Firstly, the Taliban refers to your statement to the effect that you've decided what is best for women (akin to Islamic fundamentalism' manner of opressing women), and the lack of solid scientific reasoning for your statements. The Taliban forced a religious-formed view upon a populace, denying choice. That is what religious based assertions regarding abortion do, because you've not given any scientific reason that doesn't contradict the scientific facts and assertions used as basis in law in both my country and yours.

Post abortion depression; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4379422.stm / http://web.archive.org/web/200503040013 ... facts.html / http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hea ... nd2227.htm

I have no doubt you've picked your sources on depression/PP clinics well; I suspect you would have picked the ones you knew you'd agree with. Where have you heard, I wonder, these women speak post-abortion? In what context? Have you listened to any women who've had unwanted children and been depressed as a result? Or women who've had abortions and not regretted it?

The latter also indicates that attitudes such as yours are one of the most significant causes in abortion-related depression. Understandably so, given that you've taken to demonizing these women as murderers, and those advocating choice and openness as 'nazis'. I also note you've cited one agency as some sort of exemplar upon the deep rooted medical and theological international debate.

I note you've failed to comment on the situation in Nigeria and the massive implications of not having legal, regulated and safe abortions - combined with education about said medical procedures - as an option there. You've also, I note, failed to response to the whole 'effect on the mother' thing, such as postnatal depression or other psychological traumas that can result from an unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps considering such things would make one a 'femnazi'.

EDIT;In fact, f### this. I'm not going to talk to people who are happy to call me a nazi because I believe in individual freedoms and basic medical science. If you want to carry on being reactionary and imposing your self-contrived moral code upon other people, it's not my problem,

Hooray Aldo!

Top Gun wrote: Of course not! You'd do everything in your power to stop it, to end the taking of innocent lives. Saying that pro-lifers should just "not get abortions" is exactly like saying that those in WWII Germany opposed to the Nazi regime should just "not gas people."

You have violated Godwin's Law. Thus, the debate is over, and you have lost.

aldo wrote:The genetic code exists within every single human cell; it defines individuality, not life. A stillborn child has a unique genetic code. A brain dead, heart stopped patient has an individual genetic code. Neither qualifies as alive. Whilst accusing me of side-stepping, you've failed to address that this definition has no meaning in terms of evaluating a standard of 'death'.

Yet I've addressed it. I notice that twice now you've attacked points in Top Gun's posts using arguments previously refuted in mine.

Let's also examine the foetus with respect to a cell analogy. Firstly, there is no response to stimuli without brain function; that is blindingly obvious. Additionally, being unable to respond to stimuli as a categorisation of death would cause issues with comatose or unconscious people.

Unconscious people still respond to stimuli. Comatose people still respond to stimuli. Only a very, very deeply comatose person will fail to respond to any stimuli whatsoever, and some people argue that the person is dead at that point.

In terms of nutrition, a foetus is unable to survive externally of the body due to a lack of ability to feed itself; the foetus in the womb cannot survive as an individual; I'm not aware of any 'living' being that exists which is solely reliant upon a host organism to survive (even parasitical organisms laid within a host have a physical capbility to feed and extract nutrients; the foetus relies upon the mother to process food and deliver nutrients).

A baby relies on its parents to process food and deliver nutrients (i.e. formula and baby food). Show me a baby that can care for itself. Show me a child that can prepare meals and provide for itself.

A baby is totally dependent on its parents to survive. An adult is totally dependent on an Earth-like environment to survive.

Ability to survive independently of a host is not a valid basis for comparison. Every living thing is dependent on some kind of host to some extent.

Also, the developing foetus cannot reproduce; reproduction involves the creation of a new individual entity, it is seperate from the cellular mitosis of a complex animal. Physically, we can't reproduce for over a decade post birth.

This is absurd. With this argument, someone could argue for "abortion" up until a child reaches puberty.

Most organisms require some amount of time to reach sexual maturity. Very few, if any, can reproduce immediately after being created.

Furthermore, all these criteria would mean a virus is classed as alive; a virus can reproduce by inserting DNA into a host cell and forcing it to reproduce, it utilises the host cells processes to gain nutrition, and it can 'hide' itself within cell RNA in response to conditions.

And some people argue that viruses are in fact alive.

Now, as far as the 'majority' goes, it's the 'majority'. Not all. So you can't make the blind assumption that every foetus will develop fully to term.

You can certainly make that assumption. It's not blind; it's based on previous experience. If you assume that when you ride an airplane that it won't crash, you'll have to also assume that when someone gets pregnant they'll give birth to a healthy baby.

In any case, it should be a moot point; we cannot deal with assumptions about future events in evaluating the present; that reaches straight back to the cell-and-the-egg situation. An egg, if fertilized, will develop into a child by your standards - does that make it wrong to remove it? A sperm, if it reaches an egg, will have the same effect - is a vasectomy wrong?

The egg by itself, and the sperm by itself, only possess half the genetic makeup of a human being. The fertilized egg possesses all of it. Therefore, the moment of fertilzation is the moment when life starts.

And do you have a right to say your opinion on this, your definition of life as a cell with unique DNA, is right to be forced upon the entire population, whilst being contrary to medical agreement?

I've already established that medicine and science supports life beginning at conception. If medical societies say otherwise, they're contradicting their own scientific foundation.

And if you're reducing these definitions to "opinions", then you have no more "right" to force your definition upon the entire population than I do. The only way this issue can be decided - either way - is if there is a rational justification for the definition of life.

Moreso, how does that 'unique DNA' related to twins? All that DNA is identifies a method of building an organism.

Each twin is a human being, because each one possesses a complete genetic definition. Each one is a person, because each one is alive. I suppose you might be able to propose that they're the "same" person, but you can't say that they aren't persons at all.

Firstly, the Taliban refers to your statement to the effect that you've decided what is best for women (akin to Islamic fundamentalism' manner of opressing women), and the lack of solid scientific reasoning for your statements. The Taliban forced a religious-formed view upon a populace, denying choice. That is what religious based assertions regarding abortion do, because you've not given any scientific reason that doesn't contradict the scientific facts and assertions used as basis in law in both my country and yours.

I note that you've failed to disprove any of the scientific justifications I've offered in support of my position on abortion. I also note the irony of denouncing the Taliban while promoting an illogically-formed view upon a particular age group in contradiction of established scientific fact.

Following definitions from Dictionary.com.
Not all definitions are listed, just the ones that seemed most relevant.

Definitions of Life:

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
3. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer.

Synonyms: living, alive, live, 2animate, animated, vital
These adjectives mean possessed of or exhibiting life. Living, alive, and live refer principally to organisms that are not dead: living plants; the happiest person alive; a live canary. Animate applies to living animal as distinct from living plant life: Something animate was moving inside the box. Animated suggests renewed life, vigor, or spirit: The argument became very animated. Vital refers to what is characteristic of or necessary to the continuation of life: You must eat to maintain vital energy.

Definitions of Death:

1. The act of dying; termination of life.
2. The termination or extinction of something: the death of imperialism.

Definitions of Dead:

1. Having lost life; no longer alive.
2. Not having the capacity to live; inanimate or inert.
3. Not having the capacity to produce or sustain life; barren: dead soil.

Definition of Abortion:

1.
a. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
b. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
2. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
4. An aborted organism.
5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

I think that while a fetus could definitly be considered alive and a potential life, the same could be said with any growing or developing organism. We need to determine when that potential life becomes a person.

Definition of person:

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.

Of particular note #3.

Definition of Personality:

1. The quality or condition of being a person.
2. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person.
3. The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person: Though their personalities differed, they got along as friends.
4. Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those distinguishing personal characteristics that make one socially appealing: won the election more on personality than on capability. See Synonyms at disposition.
5.
a. A person as the embodiment of distinctive traits of mind and behavior.
b. A person of prominence or notoriety: television personalities.
6. An offensively personal remark. Often used in the plural: Let's not engage in personalities.
7. The distinctive characteristics of a place or situation: furnishings that give a room personality.

Of particular note #2, #3 and #5a. A person is ultimately determined to be a human being with the embodiment of distinctive traits of mind and behavior.
Something, a fetus has not yet had the chance to develop due to biological and neural development not establishing itself up until later periods in pregnancy.

Yes an abortion is still taking life but to me, the person doesn't yet exist. Saying the fetus is a person at conception is not correct in the eyes of science. They are a potential person, still in early development stages.

Abortion should by no means be taken lightly, you are still taking life and ultimately a potential person. Taking life as you would if you killed an animal, plant or any other organism. It is still a messy business.

If your faith says a person exists at conception due to a soul etc, then fine. That's your choice. Make your decisions based on that.

But you can't expect everyone to accept your ideals and view on life.
Thus is freedom of speech.
Thus is individuality.

Grug wrote:

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.

Of particular note #3.

Yeah, but note #1. It is scientifically alive, and it is biologically a human. Thus, it is a person.

"Self", on the other hand, is nearly impossible to pin down scientifically. We don't even know fully how the brain works yet, let alone how it handles the concept of "self".

A person is ultimately determined to be a human being with the embodiment of distinctive traits of mind and behavior.

...

Yes an abortion is still taking life but to me, the person doesn't yet exist.

It is a person whether or not it has personality. Personality is a function of maturity, environment, upbringing, and other things; and it varies from individual to individual. It also changes over time.

If you're basing your decision on personality rather than personhood, you're on precarious ground IMHO. Personality is a nebulous concept, and it can be redefined pretty much however you want. We see this all the time in wars, for example, where people justify all sorts of atrocities on the basis of the other side being "inhuman", "not us", "against our way of life", etc.

Bottom line: If you want to argue from science, you have to use the scientific definition. If you want to argue from personality, you have to use a philosophical definition, and by definition philosophy - whether it's secular or religious - can not be mathematically or scientifically proven.

Thus is freedom of speech.

Actually, freedom of speech is what we're doing now - having an argument without fear that anyone is going to show up and arrest us or burn our house down. What we're arguing about is freedom of action - whether a certain action can or cannot be taken.

Goober5000 wrote:

Grug wrote:

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.

Of particular note #3.

Yeah, but note #1. It is scientifically alive, and it is biologically a human. Thus, it is a person.

"Self", on the other hand, is nearly impossible to pin down scientifically. We don't even know fully how the brain works yet, let alone how it handles the concept of "self".

Yes, note #1 and also context. It refers to a matured human for the purpose of describing someone in society.

This is what the whole pinnacle of this debate revolves around however, the definition of a person. When does a fetus become a 'self'.

Goober5000 wrote:

A person is ultimately determined to be a human being with the embodiment of distinctive traits of mind and behavior.

...

Yes an abortion is still taking life but to me, the person doesn't yet exist.

It is a person whether or not it has personality. Personality is a function of maturity, environment, upbringing, and other things; and it varies from individual to individual. It also changes over time.

If you're basing your decision on personality rather than personhood, you're on precarious ground IMHO. Personality is a nebulous concept, and it can be redefined pretty much however you want. We see this all the time in wars, for example, where people justify all sorts of atrocities on the basis of the other side being "inhuman", "not us", "against our way of life", etc.

Bottom line: If you want to argue from science, you have to use the scientific definition. If you want to argue from personality, you have to use a philosophical definition, and by definition philosophy - whether it's secular or religious - can not be mathematically or scientifically proven.

Definition of personhood:

The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality: “finding her own personhood as a campus activist” (Walter Shapiro).

Definition of Individuality:

1.
a. The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others; character: choices that were intended to express his individuality; monotonous towns lacking in individuality.
b. An individual or distinguishing feature.
2. The quality or state of being individual; singularity: She was so absorbed by the movement that she lost all sense of individuality.
3. A single, distinct entity.
4. Archaic. Indivisibility.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't mean the literal term personality in the sense of someone being happy. I use the definition to attempt to describe my viewpoint which is that a fetus does not yet have the capacity to have a personality or a sense of individuality in the form of self awareness.

I agree, it is a hazy topic when it comes to neurological development. But in my eyes, I put the rights of decision to the parents rather than to a developing life form which has (in my opinion) yet to manifest the traits of an individual human entity, and has no sense of self awareness.

Yes it is a possible human life. Yes it is not a pleasant thing to do. But yes in this case, the mother's rights should come before the potential baby.

Goober5000 wrote:

Thus is freedom of speech.

Actually, freedom of speech is what we're doing now - having an argument without fear that anyone is going to show up and arrest us or burn our house down. What we're arguing about is freedom of action - whether a certain action can or cannot be taken.

Exactly, and that is why "you can't expect everyone to accept your ideals and view on life" when they have their own ideals and views. That comes down to tolerance and multiculturalism, which is a whole other debate.

The fact of the matter is, I believe I've stated my opinion and viewpoint, I can only hope that you see my viewpoint and take it for what it is.
I think I understand yours as well; that at conception the potential child should be given its chance at a full life.

Which I infact don't fully dispute, every potential human should have a chance at life. Its only in extreme cases that abortion should be considered as an option, when the mother feels strongly enough about not conceiving the child.

I would agree, that abortion needs to be more strongly regulated by governments and that there is plenty of room for improvement in procedures. But thus is the case with near any establishment these days.

@Goober5000 specifically

For some reason I feel obliged to respond, although I'm not sure why, seeing as I'm not 'worse than a nazi'.

Firstly, having unique DNA as constituting life. That's clearly not a scientific basis for life - for several reasons. Primarily, DNA - human DNA - is identified as being a set of chromosomes with base pair instructions; these instructions do not have to actually be correct, i.e. we can have fatal genetic abnormalities in (and that kill) a developing foetus; so unique DNA does not mean human life. Moreso, it fails the 'death' test; we carry our DNA in our dead corpses, after all; so technically we'd never die. Additionally, human DNA is not unique; identical twins share it because they originate from the same divided cell. This would mean twins could not have individual living status. Also, all human cells have a portion of DNA within them; this would mean a tumour (a dividing mass of cells with human DNA within) has the same development status as dividing cells in a growing child, foetal stage or after.

DNA is simply a set of instructions. It's like a C program - you can't just 'run' a few pages of ASCII text, you have to compile it to a binary. Human life is our binary analogue, DNA our C code analogue; and compilation of course being the progress of foetal development.

Just thought I'd reiterate that.

Now, as for alive; we have a problem here. The issue of whether a foetus, especially at the early stages, reacts to stimuli is rather more debatable than you state. Most EEG scans indicate, IIRC, that the foetus is just making random acts (misfiring developing neurons) rather than reacting to actual stimuli. Most definately a foetus is not responsive to stimuli immmediately from the point of conception (remember, this is why there are legal limits upon abortion).

Also, a foetus cannot survive independent of the mother at theses points; it has no physical mechanism to survive other than being fed through the placenta (and having its waste removed through same means; note that the difference between a comatose patient or one of life support is that they already have the physical mechanisms for these tasks 'built', and the issue is usually that they have no mobility to use them correctly). AFAIK most definitions of life tend to emphasise the organism can survive independently, even if only to find a new host (in fact, I believe this definition of life would mean computer programs could be alive if programmed to act in the defined manner). I believe, also, fire is alive under this definition; it grows, consumes fuel, and 'reacts' to stimuli like moving to drier areas (the latter being an example of anthromophising random actions).

Another issue of alive; it's worth noting there is of course no general definition of life. However, that doesn't prevent application of a definition of when a human is alive; and that scientifically set as the point of self awareness. Specifically, why brain activity is used to identify the point of death. It's also why brain activity defines alive in a developing foetus.

And it's not just 'alive', is it? Because we don't - excluding vegetarians - wail and howl over killing cattle for beef. So why is taking a human life so wrong? The answer is simple - we know we are self aware, and can conceptualise death and the loss it entails. so the value of a human life, in the sense of prohibiting taking it, is that we are self aware. But a foetus, in the stages that abortion is allowed within, is neither self-aware nor sentient (again back to EEG). If you 'kill' it, it's not taking away a sentient being as that sentience has not yet developed; it's somewhat akin to just never being born atall. Unless you believe in a soul, of course, but you can't use a theological basis to legislate across a heterogenous population unless you're (and here's where they come in) the Taliban.

As for the idea that xx% of babies will grow to term, etc, the whole point is that's not a guarentee. You can't legislate based on what might happen, you can't make scientific determinations based on assuming the future. If we did, the legal terminology that allows abortion would allow you a year long cooling off period post-birth to kill the baby if you don't like it. What we have to deal with is the situation at the point of decision; is the foetus alive at this point? Is it self aware? Is it a human individual with an individual brain? And at these stages, it is not; that's the medical and scientific definition used in the legalisation.

Ok, now we have the problem of 'science is wrong'; the only way you can really justify attacking the scientific and medical definitions of life here are to claim that either a) the mass of opinion (and learning) is wrong and you are right or b)they're all in a conspiracy to kill babies.

Additionally, you can cite post-abortion depression in a goggle search, but what are the sources? christianethicstoday.com? All the ones that cite a positive accumulation vs post-natal depression from an unwanted pregnancy, seem to be biased somewhat, I'd say. In any case, it's never been a denial that this exists, but a contention that it has to be weighed against post-natal depression from unwanted pregnancy. And it is relevant, unless you want to be a right dick and assume depression doesn't matter - one of the main reasons for permitting abortion is psychological damage. If you want to bleat about post-abortion depression you have to acknowledge the post-natal depression of women forced into carrying a baby they don't want, with all the physical and mental effects of pregnancy, because of having their options removed.

Although with the caveat according to the APA "it's not so neat and clean as to whether post-abortion depression exists." (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... -3121r.htm). But I guess the APA are all worse-than-nazi baby murders too, eh?

You again show some arrogance that "I'm sure many of these mothers went underground to have abortions because they felt they had no other option - regardless of whether this was in fact the case."; what, so you can claim to prejudge hundreds of thousands of womens actions based on your personal moral compass? "Oh, she's been raped and will likely be stoned to death for adultery under Shariah law, but it's not like she had no choice"?

What right can you possibly have to cast a sentence upon so many, in a situation you will never, ever experience? Based upon nothing more than a twisting and accusation of science to fit your beliefs? Ignoring the definitions of sentience, of self-awareness, the psychological and physical impacts of abortion? Calling anyone who dares, ever, to point out these sorts of holes as 'worse than nazis'? The politicans, lawayers, scientists, doctors, and all those who study this and legalise as having some sort of hidden agenda to empower evil feminist baby killing nazis?

We all live in democracies. In democracies, we give people a choice what to believe, and what we legislate, we legistlate using good old tested, tried and theology neutral science.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.