Texas bans abortion.

[Emily's Cat]

Well the conservatives won in Texas. Abortion is now banned in the state.

First, let me say *sigh*

Second, let me say: This is stupid annoying invasive legislation and the people in charge of Texas are jerks.

Finally, let me say: thaiboxerken, your statement is factually wrong. Please refrain from making factually wrong statements that appear to be solely for the purpose for starting flamewars and tugging at heartstrings because... well... it's not particularly rational, and it makes people like me who are nearly neurotic about exactness lose our shirts. It's effectively dirty politics. As is evidenced by four pages of distraction about the fact that what you led with was demonstrably false.

 

[xjx388]

I think it's obvious that killing isn't always murder. The elements of murder are laid out in the law which is defined by society.

If I kill you and you are not a threat to me, our countries aren't at war and it wasn't accidental, then it will likely be considered murder. So it's not that much of a stretch to consider an act where a human being is killed simply because they aren't wanted as murder.

 

[SezMe]

Kermit Gosnell had a flea infested cat wandering his clinic leaving its feces on the floor. Sure that was the least of his crimes but wouldn't that appear to be perhaps symptomatic of the larger problems? People that don't care about cat **** probably don't care about basic sanitation or sterilization. Maintaining surgery-style standards might go a long way to cutting down on MRSA on any number of other infections that could occur. Or is the important thing to simply terminate the pregnancy and to Hell with the woman's health?

If you get to use Gosnell's clinic as the standard for all PPA clinics, then I get to use Larry Pratt as the standard for all gun owners. Deal?

 

[RandFan]

I think it's obvious that killing isn't always murder. The elements of murder are laid out in the law which is defined by society.

If I kill you and you are not a threat to me, our countries aren't at war and it wasn't accidental, then it will likely be considered murder. So it's not that much of a stretch to consider an act where a human being is killed simply because they aren't wanted as murder.

No one is advocating killing human beings.

• You mention the law. Legally a fetus isn't anything close to a human being until it has reached the stage of viability.
• Scientifically a fetus isn't a human being anymore than sperm and ovum are human beings.

 

[newyorkguy]

• Scientifically a fetus isn't a human being anymore than sperm and ovum are human beings.

This line of reasoning is rejected by people who reject science itself. Science has become a political issue. We're revisiting issues from the 19th century!

 

[Dessi]

No one is advocating killing human beings.

• You mention the law. Legally a fetus isn't anything close to a human being until it has reached the stage of viability.
• Scientifically a fetus isn't a human being anymore than sperm and ovum are human beings.

I believe abortion should be permitted I reject the argument that "a fetus isn't a human being". Of course it is. Taxonomic classification has nothing to do with someone's stage of development or "viability".

It is killing a human being. However, the argument "abortion is wrong because it takes a human life" assumes that fetuses, by virtue of being in one particular taxonomic group and not another, have some kind of unexplained intrinsic value. That's an incredible assumption which unfortunately isn't justified by anything. There's no basis for the view that any single taxonomic group has an inherent 'moral advantage' over any other group, similar to the way that no ethnic or racial grouping (however they are defined) has an inherent advantage of any other. Knowing that a fetus belongs to my taxonomic group instead of another communicates exactly no information needed to make an argument for or against abortion.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Dessi, a human being is an individual human life with sapience. A fetus is a human life, but not a being.

 

[Dessi]

Dessi, a human being is an individual human life with sapience. A fetus is a human life, but not a being.

I'm a native English speaker but I don't understand your comments. What does "with sapience" mean?

And you are using the word "being" in a way I've never heard before, I assumed a "being" as a noun is something that exists, thought to exist, or represented as existing (i.e. cats are beings, but abstract objects like numbers are not). Fetuses exist, but aren't beings? I can't parse that.

 

[RandFan]

I believe abortion should be permitted I reject the argument that "a fetus isn't a human being". Of course it is. Taxonomic classification has nothing to do with someone's stage of development or "viability".

What is the taxonomic classification of human sperm? Human ovum? What is the taxonomic classification of human skin cells? They are human. If they are living then they are human life. Like sperm and ovum, a fetus is human life. It's not a human being.

Just because something is classified as human and just because it is living does not make it a human being.

It is killing a human being. However, the argument "abortion is wrong because it takes a human life" assumes that fetuses, by virtue of being in one particular taxonomic group and not another, have some kind of unexplained intrinsic value. That's an incredible assumption which unfortunately isn't justified by anything. There's no basis for the view that any single taxonomic group has an inherent 'moral advantage' over any other group, similar to the way that no ethnic or racial grouping (however they are defined) has an inherent advantage of any other. Knowing that a fetus belongs to my taxonomic group instead of another communicates exactly no information needed to make an argument for or against abortion.

I make no such assumptions.

What makes us intrinsically human beings is our ability to appreciate our existence, to think, to suffer, to experience joy, to have hope for the future, to fear for the future. We value our life and so we want to protect our life. We suffer when others suffer so we want to protect others. This is what makes us moral agents and together all of these are the attributes that make us human beings.

As for other taxonomic groups. I make no such assumptions. I don't place value on living human skin cells simply because they are genetically human. I also don't think a chimp should be able to be used for vivisection simply because it is not a human being. I value all living things but most importantly I value and want to protect those living things that can think and feel and are capable of suffering. Including non-humans. I think it important we consider the variables that we share and find important. Is a particular animal self aware? Can it appreciate suffering? Is there an emotional component to its pain? Does it have the cognitive machinery to appreciate its life? Those are the reasons we protect others. Not because of their DNA. If species of creatures were found to have the exact same attributes as humans but did not share our DNA I would still happily call them human. I'm happy to call myself an primate and I value the lives of other primates.

One of these things is not like the others.

 

[RandFan]

I'm a native English speaker but I don't understand your comments. What does "with sapience" mean?

And you are using the word "being" in a way I've never heard before, I assumed a "being" as a noun is something that exists, thought to exist, or represented as existing (i.e. cats are beings, but abstract objects like numbers are not). Fetuses exist, but aren't beings? I can't parse that.

Equivocation. Terms often don't lend themselves to reductionism. To be a human being is not simply to have human DNA.

human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.

 

[Dessi]

What makes us intrinsically human beings is our ability to appreciate our existence, to think, to suffer, to experience joy, to have hope for the future, to fear for the future. We value our life and so we want to protect our life. We suffer when others suffer so we want to protect others. This is what makes us moral agents and together all of these are the attributes that make us human beings.

Ok, so human beings are humans who have important moral characteristics (ability to suffer, experience their lives, thought, moral agency) that fetuses do not. The terminology is super confusing because it contains a lot of asterisks and implied characteristics that aren't at all obvious from context. But I understand your comment now, and I agree that abortion destroys a life which is not a being (i.e. has no morally relevant characteristics in common with adult humans).

HumanBeing human = (HumanBeing)(new Fetus()); // ClassCastException thrown here
// TODO: maybe use AbstractFetusFactory instead?

 

[RandFan]

Ok, so human beings are humans who have important moral characteristics (ability to suffer, experience their lives, thought, moral agency) that fetuses do not. The terminology is super confusing because it contains a lot of asterisks and implied characteristics that aren't at all obvious from context. But I understand your comment now, and I agree that abortion destroys a life which is not a being (i.e. has no morally relevant characteristics in common with adult humans).

And to be sure there is no bright and shinny line. Life is a continuum. At what point does the fetus become a human being? Such a question is fraught with philosophical, moral and legal land mines. I have no illusions that this is anything but a quandary that we might never fully understand. FWIW: I was a former pro-life activist. I went to meetings. Past out literature, wrote to news papers, called radio programs and wrote letters to politicians, abortion is something that stirs my moral sense. Contrary to what my arguments might make it seem, I don't take abortion lightly and would never presume to tell any woman if she should or should not have an abortion. My heart goes out to those women who must wrestle with such a decision. I do not judge them and I think our society would be better if we made it clear that ultimately its the quality of life and health of the mother that is most sacrosanct in this discussion. Far too often it gets down to a debate about when "life" begins. Let's not forget the life of the mother.

Thanks Dessi.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

At what point does the fetus become a human being?

Scientifically speaking? About a year after birth. That's when babies begin to pass things like the mirror test (demonstrating self-awareness), and start showing language, empathy and other abilities generally regarded as higher-order. They may have desires and personalities before then, but so do most animals.

 

[RandFan]

Scientifically speaking? About a year after birth. That's when babies begin to pass things like the mirror test (demonstrating self-awareness), and start showing language, empathy and other abilities generally regarded as higher-order. They may have desires and personalities before then, but so do most animals.

I agree.

 

[fuelair]

A lot of texans need to suck on the undercarriages of a tribe of rabid weasels.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Scientifically speaking? About a year after birth. That's when babies begin to pass things like the mirror test (demonstrating self-awareness), and start showing language, empathy and other abilities generally regarded as higher-order. They may have desires and personalities before then, but so do most animals.

When RocketGirl was about 4 months old I walked up to RocketBoy1.0 and rested her on top of his head and said "Baby on your head!" RocketGirl burst out laughing. So I'd say even the one year mark is variable. Some kids "wake up" earlier than others.

 

[fuelair]

Oooops

 

[xjx388]

But surely you realize that YOU are drawing lines where you feel comfortable doing so? Your lines are not really based on science. They are based on your own moral compass.

My point is simply that if a community decides to draw a different line than you do through it's democratic process, how is that necessarily and obviously wrong? If a majority of citizens decide that a certain act is murder, it isn't tyranny of the majority to prosecute people for committing that act. For example, many States do not have "stand your ground" laws, which means you must retreat if possible. So a murder in one jurisdiction is not a murder in another. Those lines are up to each citizenry to draw through their legislatures.

A fetus is a human being in the earliest stages of development. It is complete, just not fully grown. As someone said earlier, a newborn infant might not even be considered a "human being" given that it has no self-awareness, sapience or ability to support itself. You could make a case that a 1 year old isn't fully human because it can't even feed itself; if you leave it alone, it will die. As you admit, there is no bright line and if one jurisdiction decides to draw a line in one area that is more conservative than another, then I think that is their right as a separate jurisdiction.

And to adress a point made by several people here: A fetus is fundamentally different, scientifically, from a sperm or ovum. To say otherwise is just . . . something else.

 

[Donn]

A fetus is a human being in the earliest stages of development. It is complete, just not fully grown.

Complete equivocation.

.. if one jurisdiction decides to draw a line in one area that is more conservative than another, then I think that is their right as a separate jurisdiction.

And women should be encouraged to flee that jurisdiction, leaving it to stagnate in its beloved red tape.

 

[Unabogie]

Ok, so human beings are humans who have important moral characteristics (ability to suffer, experience their lives, thought, moral agency) that fetuses do not. The terminology is super confusing because it contains a lot of asterisks and implied characteristics that aren't at all obvious from context. But I understand your comment now, and I agree that abortion destroys a life which is not a being (i.e. has no morally relevant characteristics in common with adult humans).

HumanBeing human = (HumanBeing)(new Fetus()); // ClassCastException thrown here
// TODO: maybe use AbstractFetusFactory instead?

Ok, just chiming in to say that I disagree with your basic premise, but love the use of code to make your point. I too wish arguments could be made with code. We could just unit test the whole forum and declare that it passed all tests and is free of logical fallacy bugs.