What should abortion laws be?

[Cecilie1200]

Laws are a class of enforceable ethics.

Ethics are heavily influences by the morality of the persons who constitute the collective.

Ergo, law is ultimately based, in part, on common or shared morality

I think we're finally getting to the bottom of why so many people express such asinine, illogical opinions. Maybe some people really DO wander around saying things like, "I think this should be the law . . . just because." Apparently, it really is possible to have all manner of opinions and shoot your mouth off about them without ever actually thinking about them at all, let alone reasoning anything out.

Was that a swipe at me?

It was a statement of epiphany on my part, because previously I had thought that people understood the consequences and implications of their beliefs and positions on issues more thoroughly, and simply chose to ignore the things that they didn't like. I had not considered that it was really possible that such a large number of people were really just jumping to an opinion with little to no consideration.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own

This 'nonperson' has done more for humanity than you ever will

If you consider Mr. Hawking a 'nonperson', then it's clear that your concept of 'personhood' is totally meaningless and irrelevant.

He was not born that way for one, I should have specified.

I didn't realize that "born that way" was part of your specification. You merely said that to be a person, one had to survive totally on one's own.

So if Mr. Hawking had been born in that condition, and the entire rest of his life had been exactly the same, he would not be a person in your eyes, because he had never been independent of outside support and assistance?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who is this you people you speak of? What group are you putting me in?

And you would be surprised at my lifestyle and how little I personally effect my environment.

Please go back and read for comprehension. I very clearly said in the post previous to the one you tried to respond to "people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation". You would not have to waste space asking me who I was talking about if you would just read the post carefully the first time.

You would be surprised how much I don't give a rat's ass about your lifestyle. If you feel the need to somehow "earn" your right to exist, that's your business and of no interest to me.

You seem to be the one who tried to hoist me by own petard only to have it back fire now you're saying it doesn't matter?

As a matter of fact, it didn't backfire, because the same question remains, despite your attempts at deflection. If the problem is overpopulation, then your lifestyle doesn't matter, because you are part of the problem simply by occupying space which could otherwise be occupied by someone else, or be left unoccupied and therefore cut down on the population.

In terms of hearing about your belief that you must "earn" your right to exist, I didn't ask, don't care, and really wish you would stop unloading your personal issues on me. I'm debating politics here, not engaging in group therapy.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If a 'non-person' can contribute so much and prove so inspirational a human being as Mr Hawking, methinks 'personhood' is of no consequence whatsoever!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation.

So while something may be immoral to you, it may not be for the populous there by NOT making it public opinion.

Individual people may not change their moral positions all that much, but societies do. And that is most often what is behind a change in the laws.

Christians HAVE changed over time. Certainly the moral stances based on a literal interpretation of Biblical values are still there as they always were, but where the majority of people and virtually all Christians used to accept that standard, today you have a wide range of Christians and so-called Christians running around, claiming all manner of moral standards. That is a change in society which has led to changes in many laws.

You're confused. I didn't say that laws were based on MY moral standards, or that public opinion was based on MY moral standards. I said public opinion, and the laws based thereon, are based on SOCIETY'S moral standards.

Please read for comprehension, because I get very tired of having to take two or three posts to explain a point that I made very clearly in the first one, simply because you didn't bother to read it, or read it but didn't think about what it actually meant.

And societies moral standards say that abortion is OK. So whats your point?

No, the moral standards of a handful of Supreme Court Justices say so, since abortion was never made legal by popular vote or by legislation passed by the representatives of the people.

And again, the OP question was what the people on this board personally think the abortion laws should be.

Also, I am getting very tired of having to ask you to please address yourself to the posts you are allegedly responding to. Simply skipping over the evidence that you're being obtuse and moving on to another topic makes you look shifty.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a 'non-person' can contribute so much and prove so inspirational a human being as Mr Hawking, methinks 'personhood' is of no consequence whatsoever!

True, but then, it was never of any consequence, anyway, being merely a made-up concept invented by people desperate to justify abortion when medical science and publicity for same made it clear they were no longer going to be able to base their arguments on fallacies and the ignorance of the public.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If a 'non-person' can contribute so much and prove so inspirational a human being as Mr Hawking, methinks 'personhood' is of no consequence whatsoever!

True, but then, it was never of any consequence, anyway, being merely a made-up concept invented by people desperate to justify abortion when medical science and publicity for same made it clear they were no longer going to be able to base their arguments on fallacies and the ignorance of the public.

I believe you are already aware of my views on the matter, so I'll not launch another rant. Suffice to say I stand by my definition of 'person(hood)' as roughly synonymous with 'a sentient mind'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a 'non-person' can contribute so much and prove so inspirational a human being as Mr Hawking, methinks 'personhood' is of no consequence whatsoever!

True, but then, it was never of any consequence, anyway, being merely a made-up concept invented by people desperate to justify abortion when medical science and publicity for same made it clear they were no longer going to be able to base their arguments on fallacies and the ignorance of the public.

I believe you are already aware of my views on the matter, so I'll not launch another rant. Suffice to say I stand by my definition of 'person(hood)' as roughly synonymous with 'a sentient mind'.

Okay, go ahead. Personally, if I must define "person", I define it as a living human being. On the other hand, I don't have any positions or opinions of which I am ashamed, or which I would find contradictory to my self-image, were they to be couched in clear, concise terms, rather than in warm, comforting euphemisms, so I assume that's why I don't have any need to twist myself into the semantic and philosophical pretzels so many other people do.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Personally, if I must define "person", I define it as a living human being.

What of the braindead? Your use of 'person' in such a manner necessitates that you clarify. Are all living human organisms of equal moral weight? Can no other thing be of such moral relevance? again, I ask you how a theoretical race of intelligent extraterrestrials or sentient machines would fit into your worldview.

I see all of these as sentient minds outside of myself. I don't see how the system from which that mind emerges is relevant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Personally, if I must define "person", I define it as a living human being.

What of the braindead? Your use of 'person' in such a manner necessitates that you clarify. Are all living human organisms of equal moral weight? Can no other thing be of such moral relevance? again, I ask you how a theoretical race of intelligent extraterrestrials or sentient machines would fit into your worldview.

I see all of these as sentient minds outside of myself. I don't see how the system from which that mind emerges is relevant.

The braindead are, by definition, not alive.

Equal moral weight? Yes and no. Obviously, not all lives have the same claim upon us, for various reasons, but I believe all human lives demand that we treat them with the same basic respect for the fact that they exist and are human lives.

For example, the burning building question so many abortion supporters like and think proves something it does not. If an abortion supporter - say Ipsl, because if you say JD, it may change the answer for other reasons - if Ipsl were in a fertility clinic with a bunch of embryos in test tubes, and the building were on fire, would I save Ipsl or would I save the embryos? I would almost certainly save Ipsl, minus any extenuating circumstances, but that doesn't mean I consider the embryos to be any less alive than he is. It just means that, for reasons of my own, I consider Ipsl's life to have more of a claim on me than the embryos do.

Look at a slightly different question. If Ipsl and my 1-year-old son, Quinlan, were in a burning building together, and I could only save one, which would I choose? In that case, all other factors being equal, I would save Quinlan. Obviously, that doesn't mean that I don't consider Ipsl to be alive or a human being or valuable as such. It just means that, for personal reasons such as maternal instinct and emotional attachment, Quinlan's life has more of a claim on me than Ipsl's does. I would forever feel badly for having had to make such a choice, but I wouldn't regret it or feel ashamed of it or doubt that it was the right one for me.

Consider for a moment the question of heinous killers. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of the state executing such people when overwhelming evidence is available. I see it as completely in line with my respect for the sanctity and value of human life, because I think that any lesser forfeit on their part is to say that the lives of their victims were worth less than they are. On the other hand, I believe that state-sanctioned execution should be as clean and humane as possible, not because their actions or character deserves it, but because our respect for human life as a society demands that we not descend to their level. And if the building violent criminals are housed in catches on fire, I believe that they should be rescued, not simply ignored and written off. Again, this is not because they've done anything to deserve such consideration, but because the rest of us should be better than that.

Intelligent alien life forms don't fit into my worldview at all, for the simple reason that they aren't part of my worldview at the moment. I have no evidence whatsoever to make me believe they exist, nor do I have any information about them upon which to base my opinions. My worldview is predicated on the information currently available to me concerning the way things are, and I will reconsider it to include alien life forms if and when such life forms present themselves to be considered.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The braindead are, by definition, not alive.

Not so. The organism is alive. Else they would simply be dead.

Brain death and clinical death (as measured, in most cases, b pulse and respiration) are not the same thing.

If an abortion supporter - say Ipsl, because if you say JD, it may change the answer for other reasons - if Ipsl were in a fertility clinic with a bunch of embryos in test tubes, and the building were on fire, would I save Ipsl or would I save the embryos?

I would, if possible.

I might leave JD and Ispl to burn.

Intelligent alien life forms don't fit into my worldview at all, for the simple reason that they aren't part of my worldview at the moment.

Why do you insist on evading the question?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The braindead are, by definition, not alive.

Not so. The organism is alive. Else they would simply be dead.

In essence, they ARE dead. They are not thriving, they are not self-directing. They are merely bodies being artificially animated by machines.

Now, for the sake of grammatical expedience and politeness, I would probably still refer to them in conversation as "braindead people", but in any meaningful sense, they really are not any longer.

Brain death and clinical death (as measured, in most cases, b pulse and respiration) are not the same thing.

When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation. I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.

If an abortion supporter - say Ipsl, because if you say JD, it may change the answer for other reasons - if Ipsl were in a fertility clinic with a bunch of embryos in test tubes, and the building were on fire, would I save Ipsl or would I save the embryos?

I would, if possible.

I might leave JD and Ispl to burn.

That's why I ruled out using JD as the example. On the other hand, I don't think either of us is arguing that JD and Ipsl are not alive and are not people simply because we don't care particularly about their existence. And I personally don't dislike Ipsl enough to let him die.

Intelligent alien life forms don't fit into my worldview at all, for the simple reason that they aren't part of my worldview at the moment.

Why do you insist on evading the question?

I'm not. I answered you. My worldview is formed and predicated on circumstances and factors which actually exist and can be quantified. It does not include hypotheticals. In fact, it can't include things I consider currently non-existent, because there's not sufficient data available for me to work with. Just as a computer cannot operate without sufficient data, so I cannot, either.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The braindead are, by definition, not alive.

Not so. The organism is alive. Else they would simply be dead.

In essence, they ARE dead. They are not thriving, they are not self-directing.

So you're going from 'they're dead' to 'they're practically dead'?

They are merely bodies being artificially animated by machines.

Not necessarily.

When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation. I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.

The brainstem can still function without the rest of the brain functioning

It does not include hypotheticals.

You area liar.

You were the one who brought up a hypothetical fire.

No matter how you dress it up, the fact remains that you are evading the matter.

 

[Yukon]

The braindead are, by definition, not alive.

Cicilie you may have disproved the theory; after all you are breathing and your heart is obviously beating.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not so. The organism is alive. Else they would simply be dead.

In essence, they ARE dead. They are not thriving, they are not self-directing.

So you're going from 'they're dead' to 'they're practically dead'?



Not necessarily.

When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation. I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.

The brainstem can still function without the rest of the brain functioning

It does not include hypotheticals.

You area liar.

You were the one who brought up a hypothetical fire.

No matter how you dress it up, the fact remains that you are evading the matter.

Crap. I typed out a nice reply to this, and apparently, my computer never posted it. I'll try to recreate it a little later, okay? Sorry about that.

 

[JD_2B]

Wow- You, Cecile, concede that respiration causes a person to be alive, and yet at the same time, just because I said the exact same thing before, wish I was dead??

Psycho bitch. Leave me out of it from here on out, would you please?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow- You, Cecile, concede that respiration causes a person to be alive, and yet at the same time, just because I said the exact same thing before, wish I was dead??

Psycho bitch. Leave me out of it from here on out, would you please?

No, dumbass, we didn't say respiration makes a person alive. We said the ability to self-direct is one of the hallmarks of life, which includes respirating AND circulation . . . both things that a fetus does on his own, by the way. Before you get confused, "respiration" is defined as "the physical and chemical processes by which an organism supplies its cells and tissues with the oxygen needed for metabolism and relieves them of the carbon dioxide formed in energy-producing reactions", which a fetus does. He just doesn't do it by breathing.


And we didn't wish you dead. We just said your life is not as worth saving as nearly anything else's to us. You're more than welcome to stay alive if you wish, provided you can do it without any assistance from us. I thought that was a position you approve of, or is that only for lifeforms OTHER than yourself?

 

[JD_2B]

You specifically said:

When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation. I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.

Which includes fetuses you moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You specifically said:

When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation. I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.

Which includes fetuses you moron.

No, dumbass, it doesn't. A fetus is self-directing. It is HIS body that is controlling the oxygenation of his cells, not his mother's or a machine's. Yes, he DOES need to have access to oxygen in order to do that, but so do you. If I put a pillow over your face, you can't respirate, either, but that hardly means you aren't a self-directing organism.

By contrast, a braindead person on life support is NOT self-directing. The MACHINES are oxygenating his cells, he isn't. His brain is not sending out any signals to sustain and direct his existence, and neither is anything else in his body. This is not true of a fetus.

 

[JD_2B]

You specifically said:

When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation. I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.

Which includes fetuses you moron.

No, dumbass, it doesn't. A fetus is self-directing. It is HIS body that is controlling the oxygenation of his cells, not his mother's or a machine's. Yes, he DOES need to have access to oxygen in order to do that, but so do you. If I put a pillow over your face, you can't respirate, either, but that hardly means you aren't a self-directing organism.

By contrast, a braindead person on life support is NOT self-directing. The MACHINES are oxygenating his cells, he isn't. His brain is not sending out any signals to sustain and direct his existence, and neither is anything else in his body. This is not true of a fetus.

No- Not any more than a person who has oxygen delivered to them by a machine has, anyways. A fetus simply has a different oxygen SOURCE than a person on a machine does. And a braindead person is hardly a topic of interest to anyone on here, as they are clearly dead and the fact that they are attached to a machine does not change the fact that their "potential to be a person" again will never increase by being on that machine, which is the emotional comparison you make in your mind every time you compare a fetus to a braindead person. A person on life support (say one who either is or is not braindead, but cannot respirate or maintain a blood pressure on their own) is given blood pressure medication much the same way as a fetus being in the woman's body is given blood pressure through veins. Without those veins pumping blood, the fetus would promptly die. The same goes with oxygenation of the blood. It does not MATTER where the source of oxygen and blood comes from. A fetus without that SOURCE is much akin to a braindead person without the machines.