Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, This has been on my mind for a few days.

I wouldn't say nescesarily that you are the best poster on SMP, but IMHO I would put you in the top 1. As a result I was reluctant to steam in, but, after some thought, I would very much appreciate it if you would clarify what you mean here.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, creatures without self awareness, social awareness or a meaningful capacity to feel, are just blobs of cells, no different to a cell culture in a petri dish.

An egg isn't a person. A sperm isn't a person. An egg + sperm isn't a person. 10 cells isn't a person. An arm isn't a person, nor is a torso or a liver. Humanness is defined by the ability, however small, to feel and think and be aware of that. Animals such as cattle and dogs that can feel and think (but not be aware) are worth more than some of the lesser tards we keep alive.

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ] I encounter communists on a regular basis. Royalists daily. Do you? If no, does that mean you don't live in the real world either?

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if there is much point to defending it. They think someone should be prohibited from making his own decisions about himself/his own body when they feel they have good reason to believe that he is about to make a mistake that can't be corrected later. It's a way to look at people and autonomy that I don't agree with, and I think it's a dangerous slippery slope. But I don't expect to convince anyone, so I left it at calling them crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

In having sex, a woman is making a decision about her body. If she isn't prepared for the consequence of having a human being begin to form inside of her, then she should not be having sex. As for having a child possibly being a mistake, well, sure, but aborting the fetus carries similar risks. And, to be honest, I don't see the slippery slope involved in outlawing abortion. Could you elaborate? Children can't be born any other way. Pro-life advocates don't deny a woman's rights with regards to her own body, they simply don't deny the possibility of rights for the potential human being living inside of her either.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying a slippery slope is involved in outlawing abortion. I'm saying a slippery slope is involved in outlawing suicide.

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course it does. That's very simplistic of you. Everything affects other people. Do you think you denying people the right to autonomy whenever they do something you don't like affects other people?

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, This has been on my mind for a few days.

I wouldn't say nescesarily that you are the best poster on SMP, but IMHO I would put you in the top 1. As a result I was reluctant to steam in, but, after some thought, I would very much appreciate it if you would clarify what you mean here.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, creatures without self awareness, social awareness or a meaningful capacity to feel, are just blobs of cells, no different to a cell culture in a petri dish.

An egg isn't a person. A sperm isn't a person. An egg + sperm isn't a person. 10 cells isn't a person. An arm isn't a person, nor is a torso or a liver. Humanness is defined by the ability, however small, to feel and think and be aware of that. Animals such as cattle and dogs that can feel and think (but not be aware) are worth more than some of the lesser tards we keep alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a person in a coma such that they have no capacity to feel, self-awareness, etc... a person? What if this condition has a chance of recovery? How big must the chance be for someone in this condition to be a "person" by your definition? Is your definition about someone's present state of being? Capacity? Future capacity? Demonstration of past capacity and memories? What of Resucsitation, generally?



My point: The definition of life evolves as per medical science. Clearly the trend is that life is becoming MORE sustainable. If this were the only trend involved, it would be inevitable that the definition of life would move inexorably towards conception. However, counterbalancing against this is the societal cost of valuing life to extreme degrees.

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree any time anyone beats off they should be charged with attempted murder. Use a condom premeditated murder. Scratch your nose, genociede.

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ] I encounter communists on a regular basis. Royalists daily. Do you? If no, does that mean you don't live in the real world either?

[/ QUOTE ]

No they're a small portion of society. In the U.S. some recent polls show that there are more who support "pro life" measures than those who support "pro choice" measures. My take from the polls is that at least 50% of the U.S. supports some retrictions on abortions.

The "pro choice" vs. "pro life" stances are probably too simplistic. I could link to the polls but they're easy to find with google searches if interested.

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree any time anyone beats off they should be charged with attempted murder. Use a condom premeditated murder. Scratch your nose, genociede.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the position might seem ridiculous to you, but sperm cells and skin cells do not have a full set of unique genetic material. Those cells are part of you, so you are not killing a separate entity. The same goes for egg cells in a woman. However, a fertilized egg has genetic material from both parents, so it's possible to consider it as a separate entity from the mother.

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree any time anyone beats off they should be charged with attempted murder. Use a condom premeditated murder. Scratch your nose, genociede.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the position might seem ridiculous to you, but sperm cells and skin cells do not have a full set of unique genetic material. Those cells are part of you, so you are not killing a separate entity. The same goes for egg cells in a woman. However, a fertilized egg has genetic material from both parents, so it's possible to consider it as a separate entity from the mother.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope it's not ridiculous to me. Calling the destruction of a bastula murder is on par with calling beating off into a sock child abandonment. Or scrathing your nose genociede. Genetic code or not.

Re: Quick question for pro life people.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree any time anyone beats off they should be charged with attempted murder. Use a condom premeditated murder. Scratch your nose, genociede.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the position might seem ridiculous to you, but sperm cells and skin cells do not have a full set of unique genetic material. Those cells are part of you, so you are not killing a separate entity. The same goes for egg cells in a woman. However, a fertilized egg has genetic material from both parents, so it's possible to consider it as a separate entity from the mother.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope it's not ridiculous to me. Calling the destruction of a bastula murder is on par with calling beating off into a sock child abandonment. Or scrathing your nose genociede. Genetic code or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analogies don't work at all. Are sperm cells and skin cells "alive"? Yes in the technical sense they are alive. However, they are merely parts of a living organism, namely the human in question. The same goes for unfertilized egg cells. Then when fertilization occurs, parts from two different human beings combine to form an individual separate from both the father and the mother, so it's sensible to differentiate between this new cell and the previous ones. That's why this is not the same as skin cells or sperm cells being killed.

Now the question becomes whether or not that entity is worthy of protection from destruction. Some may phrase this as whether that entity has achieved personhood. That is the key divide between those for and against abortion.