The difference between the death penalty and abortion

_

JonnyPistachio wrote:

scb wrote:

know1 wrote:

What's scary is both points you mentioned are not based in fact and they are opinion only.

Therefore, people are willing to potentially murder based upon opinion.

Sad.

I will agree that the death penalty and abortion are two completely different things and do not merit comparisons. I find them equally repulsive and pathetic, however.

So you think fertilized egg is an actively thinking, self-aware, person? Really?? You think a "person" can possess conscious self-awareness and will without a brain? Because I'm pretty sure scientific fact tells us they can't.

I don't think he was saying "actively thinking" and "self aware".
but those are good points. I think this is a tough debate because, like CJMST3K said, everyone has their arbitrary opinions. What I find intersting is that I can't remember anytihng from before I was two years old. Was I self Aware when I was two months old? I don't think so.

Also, there is the argument that a premature baby of just around 3 months can survive outside of the womb. Just because it's not fully developed doesnt mean it is not a person. Shit, I wasnt fully developed until I was bout 23 . So, the non-development of organs (to me) is not a good argument.

If he wasn't talking about thought and self-awareness then his criticism is irrelevant, because that's what I was talking about the he was criticising.

Self-awareness is not the same as memory. I think the people you interacted with at two months old can confirm that you were self-aware.

You mean 3 months premature (so 6 months of gestation), not 3 months of gestation, right? Regardless, since personhood requires having at some point developed a consciousness, and consciousness can't exist without a brain, I think it's pretty relevant. But I only got started talking about organs anyway because someone else brought them up as a measure of life.

_

CJMST3K wrote:

scb wrote:

So you think fertilized egg is an actively thinking, self-aware, person? Really?? You think a "person" can possess conscious self-awareness and will without a brain? Because I'm pretty sure scientific fact tells us they can't.

Without a brain, I don't believe any pain, self-awareness, etc can exist.... but you consider a fully developed fetus/baby/etc with a fully functioning brain to be a non-person if it hasn't taken a breath nor seen a bright light. Can't a fetus/baby/etc be self-aware simply by the nature of the fetus/baby/etc touching it's own face, hearing sounds, seeing vague light thru skin tissue, and kicking around (other than involuntary electrical spasms) to probe it's environment, etc?

I don't think they can, but I can understand how you might think they could. I know the line gets a little more blurry at the end of pregnancy. But I don't understand why all the talk is about the end of pregnancy when practically no one has an abortion at that point. Unsung (or whoever I was quoting) seemed to be including ALL stages of pregnancy in his assertion that there is no scientific fact demonstrating a lack of consciousness in fetuses, which is undoubtedly bullshit when it comes to pregnancies at the gestational age at which most abortions occur.

_

CJMST3K wrote:

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

The weird thing is, a 2 year old isn't going to survive without someone to take care of him/her either, let alone a newborn.

A 2-year-old can be taken care of by someone else, as can a newborn.

...well following that logic, a fetus can (at some point when medicine is advanced enough) be taken care of by another host mother in a transplant.

Well when that point comes - when a fetus can be transplanted into someone else to care for without in any way infringing on the rights of the original mother - then we'll have to reconsider abortion. But that's not going to occur in our lifetime.

_

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

SCB,

So with your argument it is the woman's body then there should be no laws regaurding drugs then. It is my body let me do what I please.

Only if doing drugs didn't in any way infringe upon the rights of another person against his will.

_

Okay, let me ask all of you this:

Do you think abortion should be allowed at 4 weeks of gestation?

Blockhead

ajedigecko wrote:

i have never interacted with a fetus or conversed with one......yet i am certain they are more "human" and "logical" than joran van der sloot.

on a sidenote....in the book freakonomics, economists have proven that the crime rate declined when abortion was legalized.

thats because alot of those children are being raised by 16 year old in the inner city where the fathers are majority absent. Theres not to many options for that child other than to turn to crime.

JonnyPistachio

scb wrote:

If he wasn't talking about thought and self-awareness then his criticism is irrelevant, because that's what I was talking about the he was criticising.

Self-awareness is not the same as memory. I think the people you interacted with at two months old can confirm that you were self-aware.

You mean 3 months premature (so 6 months of gestation), not 3 months of gestation, right? Regardless, since personhood requires having at some point developed a consciousness, and consciousness can't exist without a brain, I think it's pretty relevant. But I only got started talking about organs anyway because someone else brought them up as a measure of life.

Actually I meant a pregnancy that has progressed for 3 months. So, 6 months premature. They can live.
Yeah, you're right, memory is different than self awareness, but i think they can be tied together to a degree. There have been many, many studies to decipher when self-awareness is achieved, but it is nearly impossible to determine.

Blockhead

why even argue when it is considered a person... If there is one fact, it is that it will be a person, it just takes some time to develope.

dasvidana

Yeah, you're right, memory is different than self awareness, but i think they can be tied together to a degree. There have been many, many studies to decipher when self-awareness is achieved, but it is nearly impossible to determine.[/quote]

Memory and self-awareness are not necessarily related. Think about dementia patients. They have no memory but still react when they are touched.

JonnyPistachio

It has been proven that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain and does react to it.

Here are some common procedures for abortion:
Partial-birth abortion - The unborn baby is delivered feet first, except for the head, which is punctured at the base of the skull with a sharp object. The brain is then suctioned out, killing the child. (This method was outlawed in the United States in 2007.)

Dilation and Evacuation - Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist and tear the baby’s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.

Saline abortion - Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother’s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child’s entire body.

mikepegg44

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

SCB,

So with your argument it is the woman's body then there should be no laws regaurding drugs then. It is my body let me do what I please.

that is exactly right...A person should be able to do drugs. Why is it my right to tell someone they cannot do heroin, cocaine, marijuana, any of that? they can do whatever they want...it doesn't hurt me

CJMST3K

scb wrote:

CJMST3K wrote:

unsung wrote:

scb, when does that thing growing inside of the woman actually become a living human in your eyes?

scb made it clear. Based on its first breath and seeing light and being able to interact. In that one-second, it becomes a person, and literally not a second earlier.

...that's a completely arbitrary way of determining if it's a "person" if you ask me.

And yet you haven't answered my question about when, and by what less arbitrary standard, you think a fertilized egg becomes a person.

I don't recall you asking that question. Can you repost the question, just so I know where I missed it?

And to (try) to answer the questions, I'd say a fertilized egg becomes a "person" once brain activity begins, which is certainly less arbitrary.

Dirtie_Frank

SCB earlier you said that a child is not a consequence. I agree, but if people have sex and produce a child it is their responsability to bring the child up. Having an abortion for no other reason is bullshit. The only way, in my opinion, that would be resonable is if there is rape, incest, or risk of death to the mom. That too should only be done within the first trimester.

Jason P

The following link to the Mayo Clinic breaks down infant development. I learned some things (such as the egg isn't fertilized until 3 weeks after conception). Check it out http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

Other highlights


Week 5 – The embryonic period begins

Week 8 - Movement begins

Week 14 – Baby’s sex becomes apparent

Week 16 – Facial expressions are possible

Week 18 – Baby begins to hear

Week 21 – Baby can swallow

Week 24 – Real hair grows (and w/ intensive medical care, some babies born this week may be able to survive

Week 28 – Baby’s eyes open

Week 32 – Baby practices breathing

Week 33 – Baby detects light

Week 37 – Baby is full-term

Week 40 – Oven timer goes off.

JonnyPistachio

"Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a "uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop," according to Dr. Paul Ranalli.
http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html

"Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation," stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as "pro-choice," in testimony before the U.S. Congress.

scb wrote:

2. A fetus does not have a conscious will to live.

The death penalty, on the other hand, kills a person against his/her will.

So, if a fetus is able to feel pain and have the reaction to move away from it, does it not have the will to survive? under this logic, I think it is killing a fetus against his/her will.

I'm sorry but I am much more prone to kill a convicted murderer (and i am against the DP) than an innocent unborn child that can feel pain.

know1

scb wrote:

know1 wrote:

scb wrote:

I'm starting this thread so the death penalty thread doesn't get hijacked talking about abortion.

Two of the primary differences between the death penalty and abortion are:

1. A fetus is not a person.

2. A fetus does not have a conscious will to live.

The death penalty, on the other hand, kills a person against his/her will.

What's scary is both points you mentioned are not based in fact and they are opinion only.

Therefore, people are willing to potentially murder based upon opinion.

Sad.

I will agree that the death penalty and abortion are two completely different things and do not merit comparisons. I find them equally repulsive and pathetic, however.

So you think fertilized egg is an actively thinking, self-aware, person? Really?? You think a "person" can possess conscious self-awareness and will without a brain? Because I'm pretty sure scientific fact tells us they can't.

Did I say that's what I thought? You're projecting more into my statement or questions than I stated. Take it at face value.

know1

scb wrote:

know1 wrote:

The whole pro-choice/anti-abortion, etc., argument is just semantics designed to make people feel better about their own opinions.

The argument...and the ONLY argument is about what defines a person/human/life. This is what needs to be determined.

For example, to the so-called "pro-choice" people, all you have to do is ask what choice does the baby have. As soon as you do, they say they do not believe it is a person yet. See - the issue is not about choice. It's about the definition of a person.

I completely disagree. It's a lot more complicated than you want to make it out to be, and obviously you haven't been listening when people have explained their position to you. If you disagree, fine. But don't misrepresent the position of others.

A fetus is not a person and is not capable of having a conscious will to live or not live. So your question about the fetus's choice is completely irrelevent. You can't fault pro-choice people for your irrelevant, nonsensical question.

The definition of personhood shows us that fetuses are not analagous to people on death row and they are not capable of making a choice. But it's not all about the definition of personhood. It's a LOT more complicated than that. It's amazing to me that you can't understand that.

As it is amazing to me that you don't see that it's all a question of when life begins and we wouldn't be having this debate if that starting point was a given. Therefore, in the absence of certainty, why take the chance of murder?

Jason P

scb wrote:

Of course I can't speak for the entire left & wouldn't want to try. But, theoretically, I'd say we should leave it up to the mother bird. I think we need to respect that the eggs aren't ours, just as we need to respect that other people's fetuses & bodies aren't ours.

Let me ask you a question: You're at a fertility clinic with hundreds of fertilized eggs and a fire breaks out. There's a baby there. You can save 100 embryos or 1 baby. Who do you save?

Truth be told, I would probably pull a Costanza.

murphyJammer

It's simple, if you are anti abortion, don't get one. Easy as that. I don't presume to tell others what medical treatments others can have. Why do others?

know1

murphyJammer wrote:

It's simple, if you are anti abortion, don't get one. Easy as that. I don't presume to tell others what medical treatments others can have. Why do others?

You're right, that is a very simplistic view of it....and not grounded in reality. Again, it's all about when we believe life begins because at some point the mother is violating the rights of a person. I'm not saying it's at the minute of conception, but at some point she is doing that. It's not like she's chopping off her foot.

It's pretty similar to saying that if you're against murder or stealing, don't do them....but don't think you can tell others not to do them.