BF2S Forums Wave of anti-abortion Bills sweeps US

Blue Herring wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i have the same definition of sapience in mind. judgement and wisdom do not necessarily mean complex epistemological 'knowledge' and higher faculties of reasoning and rationality.

However, I'd imagine that at least a minor ability to introspect would be necessary, as without that distinction there seems to be no difference between sapience and sentience.  An ability to actively "separate" one's self from their own perceptions and analyze such with a degree of "wisdom and judgement".  After all, simply having a mental faculty to experience is "feeling".

but i guess we're into a debate of consciousness now which will literally never end-- if the experts can't agree then we won't. my understanding of sapience relies heavily on platonic ontology... and i believe babies can judge and possess 'wisdom' (rudimentary) of external reality.

Well, consciousness is literally defined as "awareness of the passage of time and surroundings".  But, again, consciousness is not the x-factor here. Animals are conscious and for 8 hours a day you and I are not. It's still murder to kill us while we're sleeping, however.

If a dialog wants to seriously be had, a few things have to be defined, mainly, what exactly defines murder and why murder is defined that way, and further, why or why not that applies to a fetus. Sadly, I doubt that will happen anywhere ever, since one side is polarized by emotion and the other by blind zealousness.

Excuse my french but who in the fuck are you?

Sorry, it's just hard to believe you're a completely new member and not some old user with a new name.

Sounds believable to me, welcome

We're talking within the legal abortion limits here btw, a <25 week old fetus has no sapience or consciousness to speak of. If you start going beyond that it gets increasingly difficult to try and seperate newborn from a fetus, pulling the debate in that direction will never have it end.

How some can rationalise attaching the same ethical value to a fetus without cognitive capacity as to an actual human being is beyond me, it's that very thing which is supposed to define us as living humans. Why argue that the process should be judged entirely? You would be arguing that a fetus in that stage of development has a pre-determined personality of sorts, or/and that personality and cognition does not matter in defining us as human beings.

Apart from your body existing your fetus self at <25 weeks is not you. Why does it have the same ethical value as you?

Last edited by Shocking (2011-04-03 04:33:07)

Shocking wrote:

We're talking within the legal abortion limits here btw, a <25 week old fetus has no sapience or consciousness to speak of. If you start going beyond that it gets increasingly difficult to try and seperate newborn from a fetus, pulling the debate in that direction will never have it end.

How some can rationalise attaching the same ethical value to a fetus without cognitive capacity as to an actual human being is beyond me, it's that very thing which is supposed to define us as living humans. Why argue that the process should be judged entirely? You would be arguing that a fetus in that stage of development has a pre-determined personality of sorts, or/and that personality and cognition does not matter in defining us as human beings.

Apart from your body existing your fetus self at <25 weeks is not you. Why does it have the same ethical value as you?

I explained how I can rationalize that, without emotion, or being an over the top zealot. Going on basic fact of the matter. Human life evolves in stages from conception to death. to terminate any one of those stages by your hand is terminating human life. Period. There are no "what ifs", or "yeah buts" to be discussed. That is a fact.

After that fact, the only really thing left to discuss is how we justify it, or rationalize within our own personal moral boundaries. some of us can, and some of us can't.

As far as your question on ethical values on terminating one stage of life over any other is a fair question, as long as we agree that it is human life you are terminating, killing. ( I did not say murder).

For me PERSONALLY, (I do not intend to force my moral judgement on anyone regarding this issue), after supporting and paying for an abortion, I thought that relief and a sense of normalcy would ensue. In fact, I felt terrible for it, guilty. Especially 10 years later when I had my first born, it all came back to haunt me as I raised my boys, and experienced all the wonderment that comes with be a dad. My baby if allowed to live, would be 25 years old now, and there have been plenty of times spent in my life wondering what he/she would have grown up to be like if I had allowed him/her to live. So again, lets not pull any punches, or sugar coat what is happening. When you abort a pregnancy, you are killing human life. All that is left is to figure out how you will deal with that emotionally.

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

I explained how I can rationalize that, without emotion, or being an over the top zealot. Going on basic fact of the matter. Human life evolves in stages from conception to death. to terminate any one of those stages by your hand is terminating human life. Period. There are no "what ifs", or "yeah buts" to be discussed. That is a fact.

After that fact, the only really thing left to discuss is how we justify it, or rationalize within our own personal moral boundaries. some of us can, and some of us can't.

As far as your question on ethical values on terminating one stage of life over any other is a fair question, as long as we agree that it is human life you are terminating, killing. ( I did not say murder).

Alright, I can agree to that. I guess you also understand why I'm trying to draw a clear line in between the pivotal stages of development then.

lowing wrote:

For me PERSONALLY, (I do not intend to force my moral judgement on anyone regarding this issue), after supporting and paying for an abortion, I thought that relief and a sense of normalcy would ensue. In fact, I felt terrible for it, guilty. Especially 10 years later when I had my first born, it all came back to haunt me as I raised my boys, and experienced all the wonderment that comes with be a dad. My baby if allowed to live, would be 25 years old now, and there have been plenty of times spent in my life wondering what he/she would have grown up to be like if I had allowed him/her to live. So again, lets not pull any punches, or sugar coat what is happening. When you abort a pregnancy, you are killing human life. All that is left is to figure out how you will deal with that emotionally.

To be honest if it ever happens to me, I think I would feel much the same way.

After agreeing that it is human life we are killing, the only reason left for anyone to draw a clear line is to come to grips with what they have done and win the wrestling match between their actions and their morality. Thats it.

Honest to god, without trying to sound like a drama queen, I hope you never have to find out. I would love to have a "do over" at that moment in my life. It really is one of the biggest mistakes and regrets of my life.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-03 12:47:36)

Reciprocity wrote:

sure, it's taking human life,  in a biomechanical sense, but a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus is no more a person than is a brain dead vegatable in a hospital.  There is no accumulation of experience, no personality, no sense of self or even existence.  it's just a cooperative accumulation of elements.  The only difference between the two is that one brings the anticipation of what could be and the other brings the memory of what was.  And I'm not saying there isn't a difference or that neither has value but "what could be" and "what was" do not, alone, make a person.

This is how you justify the killing, it does not take away from the fact that it is killing. As long as we agree it is killing, there is no need to justify it to me personally. I am living with my decision, and everyone else can live with theirs. I am content with the agreement as to what it really means to abort a pregnancy.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-03 13:43:38)

Reciprocity wrote:

sure, it's taking human life,  in a biomechanical sense, but a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus is no more a person than is a brain dead vegatable in a hospital.  There is no accumulation of experience, no personality, no sense of self or even existence.  it's just a cooperative accumulation of elements.

So now we've moved past denial of biological human life in utero to denial of personhood.  Well at least we're headed the right direction.  But remind me to sleep with one eye open with you around in case you mistake me for a "vegetable".

lowing wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

sure, it's taking human life,  in a biomechanical sense, but a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus is no more a person than is a brain dead vegatable in a hospital.  There is no accumulation of experience, no personality, no sense of self or even existence.  it's just a cooperative accumulation of elements.  The only difference between the two is that one brings the anticipation of what could be and the other brings the memory of what was.  And I'm not saying there isn't a difference or that neither has value but "what could be" and "what was" do not, alone, make a person.

This is how you justify the killing, it does not take away from the fact that it is killing. As long as we agree it is killing, there is no need to justify it to me personally. I am living with my decision, and everyone else can live with theirs. I am content with the agreement as to what it really means to abort a pregnancy.

I don't need to justify killing a human, because it is not killing a human.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

sure, it's taking human life,  in a biomechanical sense, but a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus is no more a person than is a brain dead vegatable in a hospital.  There is no accumulation of experience, no personality, no sense of self or even existence.  it's just a cooperative accumulation of elements.  The only difference between the two is that one brings the anticipation of what could be and the other brings the memory of what was.  And I'm not saying there isn't a difference or that neither has value but "what could be" and "what was" do not, alone, make a person.

This is how you justify the killing, it does not take away from the fact that it is killing. As long as we agree it is killing, there is no need to justify it to me personally. I am living with my decision, and everyone else can live with theirs. I am content with the agreement as to what it really means to abort a pregnancy.

A lot of life involves killing.  We have the death penalty, killing during war, and assisted killing (euthanasia) that is legally allowed in some countries.

Depending on the circumstances, killing makes sense.

Never argued that. I suppose the only difference in all of those is, only one involves killing an innocent, who has no say in the matter.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

This is how you justify the killing, it does not take away from the fact that it is killing. As long as we agree it is killing, there is no need to justify it to me personally. I am living with my decision, and everyone else can live with theirs. I am content with the agreement as to what it really means to abort a pregnancy.

A lot of life involves killing.  We have the death penalty, killing during war, and assisted killing (euthanasia) that is legally allowed in some countries.

Depending on the circumstances, killing makes sense.

Never argued that. I suppose the only difference in all of those is, only one involves killing an innocent, who has no say in the matter.

Actually, war kills a lot of innocents -- probably more than abortion when viewing it on a worldwide scale.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Never argued that. I suppose the only difference in all of those is, only one involves killing an innocent, who has no say in the matter.

Actually, war kills a lot of innocents -- probably more than abortion when viewing it on a worldwide scale.

I stand corrected, add innocent people in war that have no say in the matter. Glad we agree there is no difference in that innocents are being killed in either case.

Well, the difference is the timing, I guess.   In one case, you're killing before birth, in the other, you're killing long after it (for the most part).

I can't put what I want to write into words, its hard for me to form a good argument between my brain and the page but I can give a general run down and hopefully in the discussion following I can get it all out. That plus I'm at work. SO if it doesn't make sense or seem to have a point just ask me to clarify. Its more of a brain fart than an essay. Mind vomit even

Take uziques argument for life, but remember that the brain doesn't all of a sudden switch on to the fact that things are happening around it the second it pops out. There is a strong belief that talking to the baby or singing to it or stimulating it while it is in the womb is beneficial. It starts learning while it is still in the womb. That's where stingray's argument comes in. He was saying that his premature child reacted to the bath etc. That's because everything was put in place while still in the womg. He/she had the capacity already in their body/brain to be able to react to the world. Just because he/she was 8 weeks early doesn't mean it was incabable of everything, it just takes a little more care.

Maybe some of you have heard of visual memory. Everything you see around you, you didn't necessarily recognise the first time you saw it, your brain had to learn what it is. I watched a documentary last night, and one of the parts of it they were doing experiments on babies with the concave mask illusion. Sure the segment wasn't about necessarily about babies reacting to the world in which lowing is (this is getting to lowings argument bear with me), but showing that babies will recognise faces, without conciously realising that they have. Which I believe was lowings argument. That just because it doesn't "know" its learning doesn't mean it isn't learning. At an incredibly advanced pace, by the way. Anyway as I said the documentary isn't based on this subject but more on the fact that what the eye's see isn't exactly what the brain "sees". Interesting show and you can ask me to expand on this point, probably has a lot to do with this subject now that I think about it but not part of my brain fart right now.

So basically I think my point is kind of an expansion on uziques. Lowing seems to be countering uziques argument with it only becomes "concious" (I use the term lightly and not going to use more words again because of work) out of the brain, when it has the tools while still in the womn, ie premie baby, but only after a certain point.

Or something, please please please I know im not making sense just ask me about individual things I should be a little more clear.

Last edited by Adams_BJ (2011-04-05 23:16:17)