[US] Alabama’s abortion ban: How Senators voted on rape, incest exceptions; final bill

Nanfeishen

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
7,361
I grew up poor. Now I am not. Who are you to say that not being alive is better for those who live in poverty?
And who are you to deny another the very same opportunity, if they so choose, to lift themselves up, to get the needed education or work that could propel them to a better future by withholding, or preventing them, from receiving the medical procedure standing in their way.

It is nobody's duty or place to make those type of decisions on behalf of others, and nobody has the right to deny another the opportunity to receive a termination of pregnancy even if that action is disagreeable to one's sense of morals.
 

getafix33

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
1,639
If it is legal to perform a late-term abortion, what would happen if that same mother was murdered and the baby also died? Would the murderer be prosecuted for two murders?
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
17,723
How is anything I've said religious? We simply disagree on when life starts. I remember the first ultrasound of my first child - as much as the child was still in my wife's womb it was very clear that it was already a living child.
It was very clear to me that it was not yet human.

Life starts before conception.

Not shout out your abortion
Really how often does that happen?
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
The life of any animal begins at conception. Individual animals go through different stages of development e.g. in utero, birth, puberty, adulthood etc. Even the most rabid pro choice advocates have no need to deny this basic biology.
The argument for legal abortion has pretty much always been that the unborn humans being killed are not persons and therefore not illegal to kill.
 

kolaval

Expert Member
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
3,357
Are there statistics that indicate how many abortions are due to rape, incest or the mother's life being threatened VS lifestyle?

Would this debate rage on if abortion was only used for the latter?

If abortions are fully legal, would the people that have a problem with it not just not do it?
Like smoking.

Btw for the "dark ages"/anti religion punters, you do realise that e.g the romans left unwanted children by the river to die?
 

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
10,685
The argument for legal abortion has pretty much always been that the unborn humans being killed are not persons and therefore not illegal to kill.
The neural tube only develops around 4 weeks, then it takes a few more for the brain to develop, because they do not have a brain, they do not have consciousness. Unless now you're arguing that a bunch of cells still dividing is sentient?
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
The neural tube only develops around 4 weeks, then it takes a few more for the brain to develop, because they do not have a brain, they do not have consciousness. Unless now you're arguing that a bunch of cells still dividing is sentient?
The legality of abortion depends on the argument that the beginning of a human's life and the beginning of a person are two separate events and that killing humans when they are not persons is legal. Therefore a clear definition of what exactly a person is is needed.

The argument is that there is no consistent way to separate personhood from being a human. Maybe there is. I am interested to hear from pro choicers why there is and why it is ok to kill non-person humans.
 
Last edited:

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
10,685
The legality of abortion depends on the argument that the beginning of a human's life and the beginning of a person are two separate events and that killing humans when they are not persons is legal. Therefore a clear definition of what exactly a person is is needed.
Agreed (it's going to snow), but that definition needs to be routed in medical fact and not biblical (and no I'm not implying you're doing that, I'm just making a statement).
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
Agreed (it's going to snow), but that definition needs to be routed in medical fact and not biblical (and no I'm not implying you're doing that, I'm just making a statement).
Sure, medical facts are extremely important. However, I think it would be a naive mistake to believe we can get the correct answer by not using the tools of reason and logic as they are employed in philosophy to answer questions about morality and personhood.
 

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
10,685
The argument is that there is no consistent way to separate personhood from being a human. Maybe there is. I am interested to hear from pro choicers why there is and why it is ok to kill non-person humans.
It's not a person until it has consciousness, if we're talking late stage development and the mother is at risk, the mother's safety always comes first in my eyes. If it was rape I don't care at all about the potential child because it was created out of a vile disgusting act and has no place in this world.

My view anyways
 

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
10,685
Sure, medical facts are extremely important. However, I think it would be a naive mistake to believe we can get the correct answer by not using the tools of reason and logic as they are employed in philosophy to answer questions about morality and personhood.
How is philosophy going to change medical fact as to how developed a fetus is ? Please keep that within the confines of my reasoning regarding consciousness. If we pass that time frame and we can see a heart beat we essentially know that it is now a living being, as there must be rudimentary brain function in order to control the heart. Then your logic and reasoning would begin to apply (in my view).
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
It's not a person until it has consciousness, if we're talking late stage development and the mother is at risk, the mother's safety always comes first in my eyes. If it was rape I don't care at all about the potential child because it was created out of a vile disgusting act and has no place in this world.

My view anyways
There are several issues with this view in terms of trying to apply it properly and consistently.
Part of this problem is having a proper definition of what exactly consciousness is. Is it self awareness? Is it a certain brain wave pattern (there is some interesting research in this area)? Do you have to be awake to conscious? What about being in a coma? Is a born child even conscious?

A mother at risk can be adequately solved using the doctrine of double effect.

I can understand the example of a raped human having to bare a child. Of course the argument is that adding another violent act by killing the innocent human is not better.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
How is philosophy going to change medical fact as to how developed a fetus is ? Please keep that within the confines of my reasoning regarding consciousness. If we pass that time frame and we can see a heart beat we essentially know that it is now a living being, as there must be rudimentary brain function in order to control the heart. Then your logic and reasoning would begin to apply (in my view).
Medical facts alone won't solve the issue of personhood, consciousness, morality etc. Is vs ought, virtue ethics vs consequentialism, essentialism vs materialism etc.
 

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
10,685
There are several issues with this view in terms of trying to apply it properly and consistently.
Part of this problem is having a proper definition of what exactly consciousness is. Is it self awareness? Is it a certain brain wave pattern (there is some interesting research in this area)? Do you have to be awake to conscious? What about being in a coma? Is a born child even conscious?
I am referring to purely at birth, this has nothing to do with people in comas. And yes from what I've seen a certain stage of development brainwave patterns begin to emerge. If we base consciousness or at least brain function being able to control a heart beat. In my view that is the earliest signs of the fetus beginning to hold their own.

I can understand the example of a raped human having to bare a child. Of course the argument is that adding another violent act by killing the innocent human is not better.
Agreed, but there needs to be some rights to women in terms of who's babies they decide to carry to term. A rapists spawn is most definitely not one of them.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
I am referring to purely at birth, this has nothing to do with people in comas. And yes from what I've seen a certain stage of development brainwave patterns begin to emerge. If we base consciousness or at least brain function being able to control a heart beat. In my view that is the earliest signs of the fetus beginning to hold their own.
I am a bit rusty so feel free to correct me. Is the earliest heartbeats under control from the brain or the spontaneous depolarization of autorhythmic cells in the sinoatrial node?

Humans are utterly dependent from conception until a few years (you can argue 25 years for some:p) after birth. "Holding their own and personhood" I think are not related.

Also, linking brainwaves to personhood seems tenuous at best.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,478
Is a zygote a person to you?
I think I would argue the moment when twinning is not possible then we can say we have an individual human at its earliest stage of development. When is that, 8 days after conception? Should it be considered a person? I am open to a consistent argument why it shouldn't be. The "consciousness" argument appears to be inadequate.
 

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
10,685
I think I would argue the moment when twinning is not possible then we can say we have an individual human at its earliest stage of development. When is that, 8 days after conception? Should it be considered a person? I am open to a consistent argument why it shouldn't be. The "consciousness" argument appears to be inadequate.
So basically you're saying before 8 days its okay to have an abortion?
 
Top