What a Baby is Alive?

[Tale]

The prospect of becoming a person, under any condition whatsoever, does not change the fact that a zygote is indeed not a person.

[Dark Moth]

In your opinion, you mean. So that makes it worthless, is that it? Also, many abortions take place when a the baby is a fetus, so arguing about a zygote really isn't all that helpful. Is a fetus worthless to you as well?

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth

[WITHTEETH]

This topic always has something underneath it, religion. The thought of the existence of souls. Although souls cannot be proven, and there are many definitions due to its non existence probably, the idea of one still infects our thoughts that can twist our reasoning.

 

I'm going to have to stick with a utilitarian perspective and say keep them legal.

Pro abortion western Europe legalizes abortion, and the countries pay for them. They talk about contraceptives and safe sex open, and they have the least amount of abortions in the world statistically.

On the other hand Peru, Niger, Chile where illegal abortions have the highest abortion rate.

 

The potential argument doesn't bring much in a debate to the table. This argument has the potential is overpopulate this world and destroy current human living conditions.

[Laozi]

Yeah, but phone books are for real

[Pop]

Nonsense. We're starting with 2 basic assumptions: 1. That being human conveys value to a being and 2. That potential future also conveys value to a being. Since skin has neither of these qualities, it isn't morally valuable. Since a fetus has both of those qualities, it is doubly valuable, and we can't kill it arbitrarily.

 

Is a fetus valuable because it has a future, or because it is human? Or both? If a fetus cultivates value both from being human and possessing a future (if we don't hold a fetus' humanity as a point of contention), wouldn't it then be the case that a terminally ill adult human is less valuable than a fetus? It is human, but has no future. It has 1 quality of value, a fetus has 2. If not, you'd have to make an argument that potential future conveys value exclusively to humans who happen to be fetuses or else you'd be contradicting statement 2. If so, you'd be contradicting statement 1 unless you made an argument that not all humans are equally valuable.

[Dark Moth]

*sigh*

 

A fetus does have value because it is a human and has a future as a person. But as I said, it's not as if future potential is the only factor here. I just used it as an example. A terminally ill person is still a fully-grown, intelligent person. It's still alive. That's why you just don't go around killing him or her. That's actually murder and is illegal in most countries. You're really not grasping my point at all. You're using circular reasoning and doing both the things I mentioned in my post above. You're also trying to justify your POV by bringing up an entirely different situation.

 

Once again, the issue is not whether or not a fetus is more valuable than a person with a fatal disease. The issue is whether or not a fetus has value at all. Trying to compare it's value to a fully-grown person with a fatal illness is both irrelevant and pointless. You're basically saying it's worthless because being human and having a future doesn't make it's life worth anything at all. If that's true, a human being's life is no more valuable than a tree. Well, that's where your own personal opinion comes into play. Call me a callous conservative nutjob, but I'd choose to save a person's life over a tree's life any day.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth

[jaguars4ever]

Heck, as I see it, if a toddler is being at all annoying, undesirably rowdy, or generally pugnacious, it's okay to abort him/her/it.

[Tale]

I'm still surprised I'm the only one who's apathetic to the idea of being aborted now.

[Gorth]

Once again, the issue is not whether or not a fetus is more valuable than a person with a fatal disease.

 

The cynic in me says, the fetus has great value to the cosmetics industry whereas the person with a fatal disease only has a future as soap (soylent green?)...

 

 

On a more serious note, why are you so dead set on attributing a "value" to a fetus. For all I know, the fetus is part of the mother, being physically part of her body (through that cable thing which I can neither spell nor pronounce in english), very much the same way as a mothers hand is attached to her shoulder through her arm. Once they get "seperated", yes, then they are two different beings. Well, just one point of view

[Dark Moth]

Maybe because it's not part of the mother?

 

And that's not opinion, that's a biological fact. Trying to compare it to a mother's hand is just beyond silly.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Gorth]

And that's not opinion, that's a biological fact.

Really?

[Pop]

*sigh*

 

A fetus does have value because it is a human and has a future as a person.  A terminally ill person is still a fully-grown, intelligent person.  It's still alive.  That's why you just don't go around killing him or her.  That's actually murder and is illegal in most countries.  You're really not grasping my point at all.  You're using circular reasoning and doing both the things I mentioned in my post above.  You're also trying to justify your POV by bringing up an entirely different situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't expressed a personal POV about abortion yet. I've been questioning the validity of classification of moral personhood founded upon potential future. As I said before, it's a perfectly reasonable paradigm, if you're consistent about it, and that means exploring the full ramifications of a conclusion. If value is doled out based on future, those without future are without value. If we say that those without future are still valuable, then at the least we've made the value of future arbitrary, at the most we've contradicted ourselves. By extension, I would be contradicting myself if I said that all people have supreme dominion over their own bodies, and thus they have the right to remove fetuses from their bodies, but they shouldn't be allowed to abuse narcotics, or kill themselves. Those things follow from a supreme right over one's own body.

 

 

Once again, the issue is not whether or not a fetus is more valuable than a person with a fatal disease.  The issue is whether or not a fetus has value at all.  Trying to compare it's value to a fully-grown person with a fatal illness is both irrelevant and pointless.  You're basically saying it's worthless because being human and having a future doesn't make it's life worth anything at all.  If that's true, a human being's life is no more valuable than a tree. Well, that's where your own personal opinion comes into play.  Call me a callous conservative nutjob, but I'd choose to save a person's life over a tree's life any day.

Exactly. Which is why the potential future paradigm is unacceptable.

 

*edit - And as to whether or not the fetus is part of the mother, that is another irrelevant issue. Whether or not a fetus is "part of its mother", the fetus still relies on the mother's body to survive. The relevant question then is whether or not the mother has an obligation to keep the fetus alive, or has the right to deny the use of her body by the fetus.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Pop

[Laozi]

Call me a callous conservative nutjob, but I'd choose to save a person's life over a tree's life any day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Depends on the tree and the person. If there was a 500yr. old oaktree and a habitual sex offender and I could only save one, I'd choose the oak tree, but then again I don't blindly support sex offenders the way you do, perv.

[Pop]

The relevant question there would be: Can you build a good waterproof deck out of sex offenders?

[Laozi]

You can hew anything from the bones of fornicators

[Nartwak]

My list of grievances/statements

 

1. I am shocked and appalled at the lack of Eddo in this poll.

2. It's an umbilical cord Gorth.

3. Yeah, I'd save a tree rather than sexually assault a fetus too. What's with you, Dark Moth?

Edited January 5, 2007 by Nartwak

[Gorth]

*edit - And as to whether or not the fetus is part of the mother, that is another irrelevant issue. Whether or not a fetus is "part of its mother", the fetus still relies on the mother's body to survive. The relevant question then is whether or not the mother has an obligation to keep the fetus alive, or has the right to deny the use of her body by the fetus.

I disagree that it is an irrelevant issue. Agreeing or disagreeing on that point of view can be part of establishing whether or not a fetus is an individual. Just as the argument for or against using self awareness as a means of determining "rights" for individuals.

 

I don't think it's possible to come up with a simple set of ethical values by which it can be judged whether or not a fetus is alive (I'll refrain from using the word Baby from the the thread title as it is obviously biased). A set of arguments can be presented and in the end, the total weight of arguments and the weight you put on the arguments will determine your oppinion.

 

I'll take the word from a mother or a mother to be over somebody who either only listens to himself or narrowmindedly repeats some doctrine any day of the week. Unfortunately, those individuals whose oppionion I would appreciate seems to be notably absent from these kind of threads.

 

2. It's a umbilical cord Gorth.

Thats the one, yes

[Calax]

*sigh*

 

A fetus does have value because it is a human and has a future as a person. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if that's true than we all should do our best to get on like a set of bunnies and couple until we die beacuse every single sperm you produce has the SAME possible future.

 

 

As to terminally ill, We shoot horses to put 'em out of their misery don't we?

[Blank]

Are horses people? I submit that they are not. Can a sperm cell alone become a person with simple care and nurture? I submit that it cannot.

 

See here, we can't have people throwing around sperm and egg cells without thinking of the ramifications. And as we all know, those who are irresponsible with their sexual organs are also irresponsible with their taxes. And that causes the rest of us to have to pay more taxes while they are out there making babies and then killing them the day after.

[Pop]

l0l pwnt.

[Hell Kitty]

Are horses people? I submit that they are not. Can a sperm cell alone become a person with simple care and nurture? I submit that it cannot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can a fetus become a person once removed from the mother?

 

And as we all know, those who are irresponsible with their sexual organs are also irresponsible with their taxes.

 

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

[Blank]

Does it not sound like a joke?

 

Also, I didn't say anything about a fetus. I said something about a sperm cell.

 

But I'll still respond. I don't know if it is medically possible yet for a fetus to become a person once removed from the mother's womb. The point is that one doesn't naturally remove a fetus from the mother's womb. If you let a fetus run its course, it will become a person. Once the baby is out of the mother's womb, is it not natural for the mother or somebody to give care to it? Is it not instinctual? It seems like all around the world, from the tribes of Africa to the Eskimos of Nunavut, this phenomenon takes place: care for the baby. Naturally running the course, a fetus seems to become a person.

 

If that is all wrong, please inform me. I don't want to think human instincts are one way when they are actually the other. This all might be beside your point though, if you were making one in asking your question.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Blank

[Tale]

Are horses people? I submit that they are not. Can a sperm cell alone become a person with simple care and nurture? I submit that it cannot.

 

See here, we can't have people throwing around sperm and egg cells without thinking of the ramifications. And as we all know, those who are irresponsible with their sexual organs are also irresponsible with their taxes. And that causes the rest of us to have to pay more taxes while they are out there making babies and then killing them the day after.

Care and nurture is simple? Spoken like a true man!

[Krookie]

Tale, are you a women?

[Hell Kitty]

The point is that one doesn't naturally remove a fetus from the mother's womb. If you let a fetus run its course, it will become a person. Once the baby is out of the mother's womb, is it not natural for the mother or somebody to give care to it? Is it not instinctual? It seems like all around the world, from the tribes of Africa to the Eskimos of Nunavut, this phenomenon takes place: care for the baby.

 

So a woman who desires an abortion is having an unnatural desire?

 

If a man wants his partner/woman he slept with at some point to have an abortion, that means he is having unnatural thoughts?

 

If a man and a woman want to **** each others brains out, but neither ever want children, they are behaving in an unnatural way?

 

Is a miscarriage unnatural?

 

Is post-natal depression unnatural?

Edited January 5, 2007 by Hell Kitty