The difference between the death penalty and abortion

_

catefrances wrote:

i stand corrected SCB, i found your definition of a person... well a partial definition anyway.

scb wrote:

1. Characteristics of a person include individuality, the development of self-consciousness and consciousness of the world around it, and development of the ability for rational thought.

im assuming(correct me if im wrong) that according to your definition, only humans can be classified as persons??? yet youve no idea if other creatures share these charcteristics because yuore human and can only have the knowledge of being a human.


so i shall reask my question: what is a person?

I've never seen anyone define a non-human animal as a person, so I didn't know that was some point of contention. I disagree, though, with the idea that we can't know if other creatures share these characteristics. I don't really get your point. :?

Did you just say, "I found your definition of a person" and then ask me what a person is? :? I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

_

catefrances wrote:

scb wrote:

http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=135746&start=195#p3065485

The paragraph I quoted doesn't specifically define "person" but it does say that scientific information shows that a fetus can't experience consciousness, sensation, or emotions until birth. And I'm sure there is plenty of science and philosophy that defines "person" as having developed the ability to experience these things.

I'm not saying there isn't any debate within the scientific community. I'm just saying it's not arbitrary baseless, unscientific shit that I'm pulling out of my ass.

but they respond to music so how can it be said they cant feel sensation?

I'll just go ahead and re-post that part of the quote for you:

Before an infant can
experience sensations and emotions, the elements of experience must have their own independent
existence in the infant’s mind. This is achieved after birth through discoveries made in action and in
patterns of adjustment and interaction with a caregiver.

catefrances

scb wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i stand corrected SCB, i found your definition of a person... well a partial definition anyway.

scb wrote:

1. Characteristics of a person include individuality, the development of self-consciousness and consciousness of the world around it, and development of the ability for rational thought.

im assuming(correct me if im wrong) that according to your definition, only humans can be classified as persons??? yet youve no idea if other creatures share these charcteristics because yuore human and can only have the knowledge of being a human.


so i shall reask my question: what is a person?

I've never seen anyone define a non-human animal as a person, so I didn't know that was some point of contention. I disagree, though, with the idea that we can't know if other creatures share these characteristics. I don't really get your point. :?

Did you just say, "I found your definition of a person" and then ask me what a person is? :? I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

and that is my point... you cant know if other creatures share those characteristics with humans, which means you dont know if theyre uniquely people specific, therefore how can you use them as the definition of a person.

im asking for someone to define a person. simple. if you(general not aimed at you specifically) cant define what a person is, let alone when a human becomes one(or how for that matter) then how can you say what isnt a person. you wouldnt say a gorilla is a person, why not?? im trying to find out what is it that makes us uniquely a person. what attributes tell us were people? and what attributed tell us were human? is there a difference?

and for coaparative purposes, when does a feline foetus become a feline? when its born or before birth?

catefrances

scb wrote:

catefrances wrote:

scb wrote:

http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=135746&start=195#p3065485

The paragraph I quoted doesn't specifically define "person" but it does say that scientific information shows that a fetus can't experience consciousness, sensation, or emotions until birth. And I'm sure there is plenty of science and philosophy that defines "person" as having developed the ability to experience these things.

I'm not saying there isn't any debate within the scientific community. I'm just saying it's not arbitrary baseless, unscientific shit that I'm pulling out of my ass.

but they respond to music so how can it be said they cant feel sensation?

I'll just go ahead and re-post that part of the quote for you:

Before an infant can
experience sensations and emotions, the elements of experience must have their own independent
existence in the infant’s mind. This is achieved after birth through discoveries made in action and in
patterns of adjustment and interaction with a caregiver.

that doesnt answer my question. this is something ive experienced first hand on many occasions. so im saying in utero babies can experiecne sensations no matter how subconscious they said to be. i dont believe a baby has to be drawing breath on its own to experience sensation. otherwise they wouldnt get distressed in utero now would they?

_

catefrances wrote:

and that is my point... you cant know if other creatures share those characteristics with humans, which means you dont know if theyre uniquely people specific, therefore how can you use them as the definition of a person.

im asking for someone to define a person. simple. if you(general not aimed at you specifically) cant define what a person is, let alone when a human becomes one(or how for that matter) then how can you say what isnt a person. you wouldnt say a gorilla is a person, why not?? im trying to find out what is it that makes us uniquely a person. what attributes tell us were people? and what attributed tell us were human? is there a difference?

and for comaparative purposes, when does a feline foetus become a feline? when its born or before birth?

I'm sorry, but huh? :?

I said we CAN know if other creatures share those characteristics with humans. I never said they were uniquely specific. And characteristics don't need to be uniquely specific to be requirements for fulfillment of a definition. It makes perfect sense to say something isn't a person if it doesn't fulfill certain requirements without listing every single characteristic of personhood. My house isn't a person, don't you agree? Do you need to know every detail of physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual development of people to know that an inanimate object with four walls and roof and people living inside is not a person.

Sometimes I think you just like to argue with me - or maybe you're drunk.

catefrances

scb wrote:

catefrances wrote:

and that is my point... you cant know if other creatures share those characteristics with humans, which means you dont know if theyre uniquely people specific, therefore how can you use them as the definition of a person.

im asking for someone to define a person. simple. if you(general not aimed at you specifically) cant define what a person is, let alone when a human becomes one(or how for that matter) then how can you say what isnt a person. you wouldnt say a gorilla is a person, why not?? im trying to find out what is it that makes us uniquely a person. what attributes tell us were people? and what attributed tell us were human? is there a difference?

and for comaparative purposes, when does a feline foetus become a feline? when its born or before birth?

I'm sorry, but huh? :?

I said we CAN know if other creatures share those characteristics with humans. I never said they were uniquely specific. And characteristics don't need to be uniquely specific to be requirements for fulfillment of a definition. It makes perfect sense to say something isn't a person if it doesn't fulfill certain requirements without listing every single characteristic of personhood. My house isn't a person, don't you agree? Do you need to know every detail of physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual development of people to know that an inanimate object with four walls and roof and people living inside is not a person.

Sometimes I think you just like to argue with me - or maybe you're drunk.

its the middle of the afternooon here. so no im not drunk. :roll:


if a blind person asked you to describe a house for them how would you? when does a house become a house?

if a blind person asked you to describe a person how would you? when does a person become a person?

remember theyre trying to picture what these two things look like. and dont be running off to google for the answer.

Jason P

scb wrote:

Jason P wrote:

scb wrote:

I respect everyone's emotions, religion, etc. about their own pregnancies. I have cried at the funeral of a baby who was miscarried at 39 weeks, the day after throwing her mother a big baby shower. I have helped friends through emotionally painful miscarriages. I have witnessed autopsies of stillborn babies, and the agony the parents felt in making the decision to autopsy or not. And I have helped many women through abortions of pregnancies that they considered babies, and even been to memorial services provided by the abortion clinic. But these are all about the emotions and perspectives of the woman carrying the pregnancy. I don't think anyone has a right to tell a woman she's killing her "baby" when that is not only not her perspective but also not the perspective of medical science or law.

I don't know what "abortion simply for that sake" is - but I don't think it's my right to tell a woman it shouldn't be an option. If you're suggesting that most decisions to have abortions are made just as another birth control option - like, "I don't want to take the pill, so I'll just have an abortion if I get pregnant" - I disagree.

Is it that a women would have to acknowledge committing murder if their fetus is aborted . . . is that the bigger issue for you? You are obviously not devoid of emotion. If so, then I'm at last beginning to see some insight to your perspective.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

If you're asking for clarification of my post above, I was just saying I think there's a big difference between biology (and the law) and how we choose to perceive or feel about things. I support whatever way people choose to perceive and the emotions they have about their own lives. But I don't think anyone's perception changes the actual biological facts. And I don't think anyone's perception should be pushed onto anyone else.

For instance, if my parents had divorced when I was a kid and I had been raised in a home with a stepfather, I could consider the stepfather to be my dad. (I'm using father and dad synonymously here.) But that could never make him my biological father. And I would have no right to tell someone else that they should feel the same way about their stepfather, nor should I expect the law to change to fall in line with my feelings about my situation.

Or were you asking something else?

No, what I was trying to ask deals more with how two separate issues intertwine into a much more complicated debate. Those issues are:

1) Defining life
2) Abortion and women’s rights

I think that those who fight for issue #2 are stuck in a conundrum over issue #1. They must define life as starting when a child leaves the womb, otherwise it leaves them open to attack from the Pro-Life groups.

I see that you are very well informed on this issue . . . much more then I will ever be. But I see a lot of your comments are centered on that there is no scientific proof of when a fetus becomes a human being.

I imagine most people reading this thread would believe that there is some point when the baby is alive and functioning while in the womb. But since it can’t be defined both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups maintain a best case / worst case scenario. (Pro-life = conception; Pro-Choice = birth). And neither side can give an inch of ground on their position for fear of weakening their stance. Thus, you have a lot of well-informed people that are ignoring their gut feelings so they can justify their view … and after awhile, that gut feeling probably fades away.

That is why I think this debate will never end. That is why I have chosen not to really get attached to either position because you sorta have to stab the common-sense portion of your brain with a Q-tip until you believe your groups stance vehemently (not aimed at you SCB, just anyone that takes a hard-line view of any major issue like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc.).

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Jason P wrote:

... you sorta have to stab the common-sense portion of your brain with a Q-tip until you believe your groups stance vehemently (not aimed at you SCB, just anyone that takes a hard-line view of any major issue like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc.).

not to derail this thread, but you think anyone who has a hardline on ANY issue like gun/gay rights has a common sense issue?? is that what I'm to understand by that statement? :?

Jason P

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

Jason P wrote:

... you sorta have to stab the common-sense portion of your brain with a Q-tip until you believe your groups stance vehemently (not aimed at you SCB, just anyone that takes a hard-line view of any major issue like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc.).

not to derail this thread, but you think anyone who has a hardline on ANY issue like gun/gay rights has a common sense issue?? is that what I'm to understand by that statement? :?

No, that is not what I was intending to imply. What I was trying to imply is that you are not allowed to admit to your opposition that they may have a valid point because it then weakens your stance . . . thus, you are not reasoning with common sense.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

oh, ok, that's better. I admit that someone else has a vaild point on here all the time, and thus no one listens to me!

Jason P wrote:

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

Jason P wrote:

... you sorta have to stab the common-sense portion of your brain with a Q-tip until you believe your groups stance vehemently (not aimed at you SCB, just anyone that takes a hard-line view of any major issue like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc.).

not to derail this thread, but you think anyone who has a hardline on ANY issue like gun/gay rights has a common sense issue?? is that what I'm to understand by that statement? :?

No, that is not what I was intending to imply. What I was trying to imply is that you are not allowed to admit to your opposition that they may have a valid point because it then weakens your stance . . . thus, you are not reasoning with common sense.

CJMST3K

scb wrote:

If you're suggesting that most decisions to have abortions are made just as another birth control option - like, "I don't want to take the pill, so I'll just have an abortion if I get pregnant" - I disagree.

I have heard it put exactly this way from a woman who does not use birth control and has had abortion(s). I've heard "If I get pregnant again, I'll just get that sucker pulled out again" though I am paraphrasing.

Jason P wrote:

No, what I was trying to ask deals more with how two separate issues intertwine into a much more complicated debate. Those issues are:

1) Defining life
2) Abortion and women’s rights

I think that those who fight for issue #2 are stuck in a conundrum over issue #1. They must define life as starting when a child leaves the womb, otherwise it leaves them open to attack from the Pro-Life groups.

I see that you are very well informed on this issue . . . much more then I will ever be. But I see a lot of your comments are centered on that there is no scientific proof of when a fetus becomes a human being.

I imagine most people reading this thread would believe that there is some point when the baby is alive and functioning while in the womb. But since it can’t be defined both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups maintain a best case / worst case scenario. (Pro-life = conception; Pro-Choice = birth). And neither side can give an inch of ground on their position for fear of weakening their stance. Thus, you have a lot of well-informed people that are ignoring their gut feelings so they can justify their view … and after awhile, that gut feeling probably fades away.

That is why I think this debate will never end. That is why I have chosen not to really get attached to either position because you sorta have to stab the common-sense portion of your brain with a Q-tip until you believe your groups stance vehemently (not aimed at you SCB, just anyone that takes a hard-line view of any major issue like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc.).

Jason, this is a very well put post which I agree with.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

CJMST3K wrote:

I have heard it put exactly this way from a woman who does not use birth control and has had abortion(s). I've heard "If I get pregnant again, I'll just get that sucker pulled out again" though I am paraphrasing.

I also found out after having "relations" with one woman that she had had 6 previous abortions (that this mutual friend KNEW about). SIX. How disgusting. Not to mention the permanent damage that gets done to your body after that many.

breath123

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

CJMST3K wrote:

I have heard it put exactly this way from a woman who does not use birth control and has had abortion(s). I've heard "If I get pregnant again, I'll just get that sucker pulled out again" though I am paraphrasing.

I also found out after having "relations" with one woman that she had had 6 previous abortions (that this mutual friend KNEW about). SIX. How disgusting. Not to mention the permanent damage that gets done to your body after that many.

To me, legislation on abortion makes about as much sense as gun control laws.

both are meant to control the "criminal" element, both punish the responsible.

no reasonable person takes a gun with the purpose of killing a person. No reasonable person has six abortions (or perhaps even a second one).

To that point I would also add that if I ever absolutely NEED a gun, it's good to have it available as a last option....

same with an abortion.

in both cases, laws will not stop someone from getting a gun or having an abortion.

_

Jason P wrote:

No, what I was trying to ask deals more with how two separate issues intertwine into a much more complicated debate. Those issues are:

1) Defining life
2) Abortion and women’s rights

I think that those who fight for issue #2 are stuck in a conundrum over issue #1. They must define life as starting when a child leaves the womb, otherwise it leaves them open to attack from the Pro-Life groups.

I see that you are very well informed on this issue . . . much more then I will ever be. But I see a lot of your comments are centered on that there is no scientific proof of when a fetus becomes a human being.

I imagine most people reading this thread would believe that there is some point when the baby is alive and functioning while in the womb. But since it can’t be defined both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups maintain a best case / worst case scenario. (Pro-life = conception; Pro-Choice = birth). And neither side can give an inch of ground on their position for fear of weakening their stance. Thus, you have a lot of well-informed people that are ignoring their gut feelings so they can justify their view … and after awhile, that gut feeling probably fades away.

That is why I think this debate will never end. That is why I have chosen not to really get attached to either position because you sorta have to stab the common-sense portion of your brain with a Q-tip until you believe your groups stance vehemently (not aimed at you SCB, just anyone that takes a hard-line view of any major issue like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc.).

Okay, I think I understand.

I disagree with the part about people ignoring gut feelings or common sense (that one's pretty loaded) to justify their team's side. I think there are some people who do this with this issue and all issues. But I think there are plenty of other people who really educated themselves about issues that are important to them and really give it a lot of sincere thought. Not everyone's puts themselves into categories and then shapes their thoughts to fit those categories.

Regarding your two issues, I don't feel any conundrum about it because I don't actually feel like #1 should necessarily have any bearing on #2. I'm only talking so much about when a fetus becomes a person (I've agreed that it's alive) because it seemed relevant to the death penalty comparison. I think conscious will (like the will to live) is much more imporant that whether or not it's a person.

Here's how I see it: I don't think an embryo/fetus has a consciousness. Even if they did, I don't think they have a will. Even if they did, I don't have any reason to believe their will is to be born. Even if it was, they are not able to communicate that to us. In situations like these where a person is not able to communicate whether or not he wants to be kept alive - like with people in comas, babies, pets (no, I'm not saying a pet is a person), etc. - it falls to the closest family member to interpret what the person would want and what is best for the person. Sometimes people don't want to be kept alive. And sometimes it's not in their best interest to be born. So it's left to the mother to decide what is best. It's a judgement call, and an extremely difficult decision to make. Parents (and pet owners, children of people in comas, etc.) have to do what they think is best. And I believe they sincerely do.

Now if a fetus could clearly communicate that it desired to be born, then it would be a matter of rights of the mother vs. rights of the fetus. The rights of the mother would trump the rights of the fetus, because - as someone has already said about organ donation - no one can be made to give their bodies to someone else against their will. (I bet many/most of them would though.)

Edit to add: Oh yeah, breath123 just added the next dimension to it. Even if fetuses told us they wanted to live and its rights trumped the mother's, women would still get abortions. Making abortion illegal does not reduce the incidence of abortion - it only makes them less safe. This is a public health issue. Plus, when a woman dies because of an illegal abortion, that leaves her existing children motherless, which is bad for the innocent born children. (In many parts of the world where abortion is illegal, maternal mortality is the #1 cause of death of women, illegal/unsafe abortion is the #1 cause of maternal mortality, and the woman's children are something like 4 times more likely to die within a few years of the mother's death.) So anyway, even if abortion were completely immoral and wrong, and still think it should remain legal.

JonnyPistachio

scb wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Actually I meant a pregnancy that has progressed for 3 months. So, 6 months premature. They can live.

Please provide some evidence that this is possible and statistics indicating what the chances are.

I thought I saw 12 weeks somewhere, but apprently I was wrong. I think I kept seeing 21 weeks and dislexia kicked in = 12 weeks. (bad math, sorry :oops: ) Anyways, the earliest premature babies I have seen record of is around 21 weeks. The whole point though, was that its tough to base at what point a baby is considered a person/consciousness of outside world... there is a 3-4 month window from where a baby can survive prematurely where it is still supposed to develop in the womb. However, Scb also showed that the majority of abortions take place before 20 weeks too, where there is no way a baby can survive outside the womb, and it is unidentifiable as a fetus in most cases of earliest abortions.

Again, thank God I'll never have to make this decision. We are all entitled to our opinions, but I wouldnt have to make a decision if I got a girl prgnant. I would alkways try take the baby to term if it was up to me.

Another can of worms -- has anyone heard situations were a woman wants an abortion, but the father doesnt?? That would suck.

JonnyPistachio

scb wrote:

I disagree with the part about people ignoring gut feelings or common sense (that one's pretty loaded) to justify their team's side. I think there are some people who do this with this issue and all issues. But I think there are plenty of other people who really educated themselves about issues that are important to them and really give it a lot of sincere thought. Not everyone's puts themselves into categories and then shapes their thoughts to fit those categories.

Regarding your two issues, I don't feel any conundrum about it because I don't actually feel like #1 should necessarily have any bearing on #2. I'm only talking so much about when a fetus becomes a person (I've agreed that it's alive) because it seemed relevant to the death penalty comparison. I think conscious will (like the will to live) is much more imporant that whether or not it's a person.

Here's how I see it: I don't think an embryo/fetus has a consciousness. Even if they did, I don't think they have a will. Even if they did, I don't have any reason to believe their will is to be born. Even if it was, they are not able to communicate that to us. In situations like these where a person is not able to communicate whether or not he wants to be kept alive - like with people in comas, babies, pets (no, I'm not saying a pet is a person), etc. - it falls to the closest family member to interpret what the person would want and what is best for the person. Sometimes people don't want to be kept alive. And sometimes it's not in their best interest to be born. So it's left to the mother to decide what is best. It's a judgement call, and an extremely difficult decision to make. Parents (and pet owners, children of people in comas, etc.) have to do what they think is best. And I believe they sincerely do.

Now if a fetus could clearly communicate that it desired to be born, then it would be a matter of rights of the mother vs. rights of the fetus. The rights of the mother would trump the rights of the fetus, because - as someone has already said about organ donation - no one can be made to give their bodies to someone else against their will. (I bet many/most of them would though.)

SCb, do you have any thoughts on the experiments where babies apparently react to music such as classical music? I have heard about it, but dont know all the details. Idont know what ages they tested either.

Jason P

scb wrote:

Okay, I think I understand.

I disagree with the part about people ignoring gut feelings or common sense (that one's pretty loaded) to justify their team's side. . . .

Yeah, I probably should have worded that differently as I can see how someone could find that insulting. As for the rest of your comments, I will review and comment at a later time because it's Friday and I have a swimming pool and some cold beers waiting for me. Enjoy the weekend!

_

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

CJMST3K wrote:

I have heard it put exactly this way from a woman who does not use birth control and has had abortion(s). I've heard "If I get pregnant again, I'll just get that sucker pulled out again" though I am paraphrasing.

I also found out after having "relations" with one woman that she had had 6 previous abortions (that this mutual friend KNEW about). SIX. How disgusting. Not to mention the permanent damage that gets done to your body after that many.

If women used abortion as their method of birth control and wanted 2 children, they would have 30 abortions by the time they were 45 years old. Have either of you known any women who have had 30 abortions?

Also, just because a woman says she would have an abortion if she got pregnant (or has had multiple abortions), it doesn't necessarily mean she intends to use (or was using) abortion as birth control. People have all sorts of different situations and mean all sorts of different things - and they don't always share their feelings & experiences with guys who fuck them and then talk shit about them on the internet.

And even if some women in the U.S. do use abortion as birth control, it's not the majority. So I don't know why people are always so quick to frame abortion in this context.

_

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Another can of worms -- has anyone heard situations were a woman wants an abortion, but the father doesnt?? That would suck.

Sure. And sometimes they pressure her into having the child. And sometimes the woman knows she's going to abort and doesn't want to hurt the father, so she doesn't tell him so as to try to spare his feelings.

This kind of thing is a particulalry big deal, though, when it comes to parents and minors. Many states require that minors get consent from at least one of their parents (sometimes both) before they can have an abortion, and parents frequently don't give it, thereby forcing a child to have a child she doesn't want. Also, in cases where minors are required to or choose to notify their parents - even in states where abortion is legally the decision of the minor - parents often coerce the minor into continuing the pregnancy, and then also decide whether it will be placed for adoption.

Of course, partners and parents also frequently swing the other way and coerce women into having abortions they don't want.

_

JonnyPistachio wrote:

SCb, do you have any thoughts on the experiments where babies apparently react to music such as classical music? I have heard about it, but dont know all the details. Idont know what ages they tested either.

I haven't read any studies about it or anything. My first inclination, which matches what I have read about fetuses reacting to simulus in gereral, is that it's just an involentary reaction, not a conscious one. What are your thoughts on it?