It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Let's look at this from another angle. If I decided tomorrow that men's balls contained millions of potential babies and therefore wanted to outlaw the anything that 'wasted seed' (so to speak...umm, the big "M") I'm sure men would be the first to complain "get your laws off my body" and the porn industry would panic.
Originally posted by Maslo
With twins, one is not created inside of and dependent on the other for its life, growth, nourishment, and entry into this world. The twins are clearly two equal individuals with some biological functions they share. They are equals.
One twin can be biologically dependent on the other. They are not necessarily equals in this, just like a mother and a foetus. What is the difference, then? I dont see any.
Are you now moving the goalposts and bringing up a scenario where the "twins" consist of basically one person and a growth that has no chance of being a 'person'? As in this story? Source
But if I was put into the situation where I had conjoined twins, one of whom was completely biologically dependent on the other (clearly not equal in terms of biology), I would make that decision. If one twin was completely dependent on the other one, who could function fine on his own, I would probably decide to have the 'inert' twin removed, so the independent one could have a more normal life. Some other mother may decide that they both should live conjoined. That would be her decision and I would support it.
Question for you: If something was growing inside you for whatever reason, would you want the right to choose if it should continue to grow or do you want the government to choose? It's really that simple.
If you were growing inside someone for whatever reason, would you want the right to choose if you should continue to grow or do you want the host to choose? It's really that simple.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog
Tyranny is certainly OK sometimes, when the alternative is worse, or would lead to greater breaching of basic human rights. Yes, removing human rights to protect life or health of another human being can be OK. Yes, defensive wars are OK. Violence is simply a tool. Tool itself is not evil, only how you use it can be evil.
You are implying baby in the third trimester is not a person. This is not a question of rights. Rights depend on our definition of a person, not the other way around.
No, baby certainly does not belong to parents. Baby is individual person with rights, such as right to live, to be taken care of etc.. Baby belongs to noone. Otherwise child abuse would be legal. So what about childrens rights?
Parents do not have a right to do everything with their children. And yes, it is a duty of the state to protect individual rights, such as childrens rights.
Nor ability to act (free agency), nor continuous consciousness should define person IMHO. In the first case, it would allow to kill human beings which are exactly like you and me, only cannot influence the world for some case (illness, isolation). In the second case, early newborns or sleeping persons could be killed (they also momentarily lack free agency and ability to influence the external world, so they are also excluded by the first criterion).
This is my definition of a person, being:
It refers to a life form that has properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").
Presence of mind is what should define personhood, and that is a question of neurology. According to brain scans, mind (ordered brain waves) develops after 5th month of fetal development.
Whether something should have rights or not is thus a neurological question for me.
What about a plant? Is it a person? No. Why not....?
It is not a person, there is no sentience (mind), not even neural system, only automated life functions. You seem to misunderstood my post. The quoted part refers to part of definition I would keep, not what I would cut out. I would cut out the agency thingy.
....there is no difference between pregnant mother and siamese twins.
Two sentient beings (persons) in one body. One of them should not have a right to kill the other one.
Originally posted by Maslo
If you are pro-choice even in that case, your ideology is not inconsistent. But werent you saying the opposite before?
I consider human body to be a very important private asset, but ultimately similar to a house or a money in the bank. Government should generally keep out of it, but there may be situations when interference is justified.
Question for you: If you were growing inside someone for whatever reason, would you want the right to choose if you should continue to grow or do you want the host to choose? It's really that simple.
Another question for you: Do you agree with ban on late-term abortions after the point of external viability, when abortion is not necessary to terminate the pregnancy?
You are intimating that there is a consciousness involved with this fetus. You are even implying that it has some degree of self-awareness.
You said you are not against potential for life, so do you consider a fetus to be truly 'alive'? Do you think it is capable of suffering?
Would you give those same rights to a malignant tumour?
Tyranny is not ok, is never ok, just as slavery is not ok, is never ok, and your argument is a "lesser of two evils" position. Just because one might be considered "less evil" than another does not make it ok/good, and it is up for debate as to whether removing a person's basic human rights in favor of a fetus who is not a person is a huge "evil" on par or exceeding it's destruction. My point was ALL war is for "self defense", on both sides. Think about it. War is not a 'neutral' tool that can be used for good or evil. War is inherently evil, IMO, and if you had ever been in one you would recognize that. In fact, if you think war is ok, then you also think killing is ok when it is in "self-defense" which history shows all killers claim way or the other. How hypocritical of you to then be all "baby killer" on women who "kill their babies". Babies die in war too, usually as 'collateral damage' but you're "ok" with that right since you are ok with war. I don't think you can have it both ways.
It is not a person at all until it is born at which point is is accorded rights of person-hood. I am more than implying, I am outright saying a person is not a person until they are born. Rights are not accorded to 'non-persons'.
"Mind" is not a neurological concept, in neurological terms our brains are synaptic connections, chemicals, electricity and some yogurty kind of tissue. "Mind" is not simply "ordered brain waves" as many animals and relatively simple organisms have "ordered brain waves". Sentience is not a neurological concept. What you are referring to when you say "presence of mind" usually refers to the concept of a being that is conscious of itself, and that is not a neurological concept. When you get this straight get back to me.
If you really would grant rights and personhood based on pure neurology, as you say, at what point to you draw the line between simple and complex. Chimps, dolphins and elephants have highly complex neocortexes, your argument on this basis alone would accord them the same rights as you and me.
Yes, I think you would cut out agency as having anything to do with person-hood because it is not convenient to your argument. If person-hood includes agency then obviously fetuses are not persons.
Siamese twins do not conceive, gestate and birth one another.
If one is wholly dependent on the other it would not be considered a "person". Good grief, what a ridiculous statement to make. Are you seriously pursuing this line of reasoning? Are you trying to convince anyone that is is really true?
I recall saying that it is generally considered illegal for one person to harm or kill another , but the point is moot in this unlikely scenario since sharing one body neither would have the agency to harm or kill the other!
Originally posted by Kitilani
Originally posted by Ashes of the wake
I always wonder how many of these hardcore pro lifers are adopting unwanted children. My guess is not many.
This should answer your question.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Originally posted by marg6043
I ask him if he will be willing to adopt.
We are seriously thinking about it.
That's awesome man
You could maybe get the joy you are looking for and help a kid/baby out as well
Me and my wife were also wanting to adopt as we saw an ad on the newspaper for a specific little girl
but then she got taken and we called too late
She was vegetarian, we are also vegetarian, so naturally we would want a vegetarian as well.
See, he would have adopted that one but it was taken. Now he only wants another one that fits his mold. Too bad for all those unwanted kids that eat meat. Screw them.
I have done my very best to openly and honestly answer your questions, the purpose of which seems to be to find some flaw in my character by pointing out some imagined contradiction in my opinions. Yet, you continue to ask for clarification that I have already given... I'm not sure of your intention, but I really have done my best. At this point, if you wish to think that my character is flawed, feel free to do so. If you wish to make that claim here on ATS, again, feel free. But I really don't know how to satisfy your curiosity about my opinions on abortion. It's not an easy subject. It's NOT cut and dried, as you seem to want to make it. Not in my eyes, anyway.
Oh, and there seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I do not consider the human body a private asset like a house or a bank account. I could NEVER, EVER justify government interference into a person's body. There is NEVER a time when I would turn over my autonomy to a government or expect anyone to do so. ALL decisions about my body are mine.
In this very unrealistic and impossible hypothetical situation, my opinion is that the host would have the right to choose. They are the ones that have to house me and suffer for me, growing me and bringing me into the world. If THEY chose to do that, it's fine. But no, I wouldn't expect to have the right to force them to carry and bear me. I thought that was clear from my position as stated. (I am not a hypocrite, regardless how much you wish to paint me as one. )
No. There is no specific date after which viability is assured. It's not cut and dried. The vast majority of abortions in the US are performed during the first trimester (87%). A ban on something that doesn't often happen is just another useless law... and one that violates a person's privacy.
Originally posted by Maslo
My intention is to investigate the double standard you seem to hold when it comes to treating siamese twins and mother-child biologically connected entities differently for no apparent reason.
As for a persons privacy, what do you mean? It is not like they are going to broadcast it on TV.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by yes4141
I argue that the potential for life is indeed more important than life itself in every which way.
Potential is always greater than current because it's derivative based, not a single digit.
I'd save anyone irregardless to whom they are, but the objective truth of the matter is that the choices people make make themselves less valuable or more valuable beyond that basic humanity. That basic humanity is what gives us all the same rights. And the potential to get there is the justifies for it.
Acts require energy. If I do not take an action that uses energy in creating life, I am not blamed for murder. That's why I can use a condom or something, because the action is preventing life, not ending one that has already begun its potential.
When two actions result in exactly the same consequences (causing potential not to continue), they cannot have different moral value.
The start of potential is a fixed point in time and space. Actions done to prevent it are not murder for the potential doesn't exist.
Then I can kill a child without moral fear.
In the first case you stop only the potential, in the second case you kill already existing child (an actuality).
no, it isn't. Because people have free will. Adults can make choices. To say the potential exists before conception is to say the will of the consenting adults is not important, in which case, if their opinion of the matter is not important, than the fact they are adults is irrelevant, and the right to life does not exist anywhere.
Not an adult. Not something that is as intelligent, sophisticated, emotional, and mature as me.