But we'll have less if more low IQ women abortion, right?
Hello! I've been researching a lot about abortions and such recently, trying to formulate a coherent and consistent opinion on the matter, and I'd like to see how my current stance holds up to scrutiny. My opinions are:
A fetus in the womb is undeniably human.
It may mostly look like a baby, just really small.
It may have its own DNA, and be a separate entity from the mother.
It may have a heartbeat.
It is alive.
However, it does not, nor should it, have personhood and rights.
"Alive" should not automatically mean "person".
The capacity to suffer should be the determining factor of personhood.
Non-human animals are not considered a "person" because even though they are alive, they do not have the self-awareness and capacity to suffer as a human does.
My dog is alive, but is not a "person".
The cow that is on my dinner plate in the form of beef was alive, but never a person.
The tree outside is alive but is not a person.
Humans have the highest awareness and capacity to suffer, therefore we have the most rights and "personhood".
The potential for personhood does not equal current personhood.
Personhood should be granted to the things that suffer from the lack of it, such as self-aware creatures that can feel emotional and or physical pain.
Therefore, a fetus that is not developed enough to feel pain or suffering does not have personhood. Thus, abortion is not wrong.
Does this sound like a good argument?
Do you believe abortions should also be illegal once in the 2nd trimester?The charge depends on how far along the development of the baby is. Some time in the second trimester, the fetus develops enough to feel pain. When that milestone is reached, I think it should have rights, and I think charging the criminal with a double murder is justified. The police and or government should be allowed to press charges. But the specifics should be determined by the affected party and what they decide will give them the most closure. If they don't want to press charges, then they shouldn't have to. If the baby didn't reach person hood yet, but the family wanted the baby, and pressing charges will give them closure, then they should be free to do so.
Originally Posted by southwest88
If everything goes right [in the pregnancy], & there are no outside influences - drugs, alcohol, accident - there are still a substantial number (15 to 25%) of spontaneous miscarriages. (Drugs, BTW, includes things like Thalidomide, as well as doses of recreational drugs; & then there's Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - heavy drinking has enormous & permanent impacts on the fetus.)
end quote/
offspring - No, I was pointing out that fetuses die, sometimes for no apparent reason.
baby is still human - If a fetus miscarries early on, it's typically for genetic or developmental reasons. In blunter language, the fetus might not even look human. So count your blessings. If the development of the fetus is severely out of phase, the pregnancy likely terminates because communication between the fetal & the woman's biochemistry goes out of synch or fails altogether.
:roll:The definition of a person: a human being regarded as an individual. That isn't quite the same thing as just human.
I think you and I are defining "person hood" differently. When I say "person hood", I mean that it is a conscious being that can feel emotional and or physical suffering. That is what we normally give "person hood" to.
Currently, we only give that to humans, because we are the only being that we know of that has our level of consciousness and self-awareness. It does not inherently mean "human". If we invented a self-aware A.I, or gorillas suddenly became able communicate with us on our level, even if they weren't as smart as us, I think they should still be protected and granted some level of person hood. But a fetus that isn't developed enough to feel physical or emotional pain does not have person hood, even if it is human. Thus, abortion isn't murder and should remain a constitutional right.
The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life. - PubMed - NCBIThe emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life.
The fetus may be aware of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, and sound, and shows facial expressions responding to external stimuli. However, these reactions are probably preprogrammed and have a subcortical nonconscious origin. Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. Conversely, the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of shared feelings.
The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli.
Which is a reaching spin by the pro-choice, in their effort to make the murder of the unborn,
acceptable to society.
This is a way to strip away the fetus' humanity - because pro-choice know that what they want to do to the unborn, is something evil - something that shouldn't be done to a human being.
It's exactly like how Hitler dehumanized Jews, and slavers dehumanized Black people. :shrug:
Like I've stated before - whenever someone tries to dehumanize a people - you bet, they're up to
no good. They want to do something evil to those they've dehumanized.
By dehumanizing, they can sell their evil deed to become acceptable.
A lot of people hardly need any convincing when they're motivated by self-interest, or they lack critical thinking, and/or possess shallow moral values. Some even have psychopathic tendencies.
Btw......
The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life. - PubMed - NCBI
Pro-choice people refuse to give it the benefit of a doubt that the fetus feel pain.
They latch on to the unproven study that the fetus doesn't feel any pain.
It helps salve their conscience to believe that there is no pain when instruments start tearing that
flesh apart.
Do you believe abortions should also be illegal once in the 2nd trimester?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Which is a reaching spin by the pro-choice, in their effort to make the murder of the unborn,
acceptable to society.
This is a way to strip away the fetus' humanity - because pro-choice know that what they want to do to the unborn, is something evil - something that shouldn't be done to a human being.
It's exactly like how Hitler dehumanized Jews, and slavers dehumanized Black people. :shrug:
Like I've stated before - whenever someone tries to dehumanize a people - you bet, they're up to
no good. They want to do something evil to those they've dehumanized.
By dehumanizing, they can sell their evil deed to become acceptable.
A lot of people hardly need any convincing when they're motivated by self-interest, or they lack critical thinking, and/or possess shallow moral values. Some even have psychopathic tendencies.
Btw......
The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life. - PubMed - NCBI
Pro-choice people refuse to give it the benefit of a doubt that the fetus feel pain.
They latch on to the unproven study that the fetus doesn't feel any pain.
It helps salve their conscience to believe that there is no pain when instruments start tearing that
flesh apart.
Your kinda dancing around on this. Your saying don't break it if it's not broken. If it's broken or not is debatable. In your OP you say your trying to determine if your opinion is consistent, coherent, and withstands scrutiny. Your opinion nor laws is consistent. They are both maternal bias.I'm open to that idea. But I also think "If it's not broke, don't fix it." The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, few occur in the beginning of the second trimesters, and a small number of abortions that are considered late term abortions occur after 24 weeks. If someone is seeking a late term abortion, it is more than likely for medical reasons. After all, why would someone who doesn't want a child, and doesn't want to be pregnant or have her life adversely affected in any way just keep the baby for 5 - 9 months for ****s and giggles. I don't see the need for further legislation on the issue because Roe v Wade already places heavy restriction on late term abortions, and aside from medical reasons, planned parenthood doesn't do abortions after 24 weeks. That also happens to be the time that fetuses are said to feel pain. Though, I'd argue that's cutting it close. If people wanted to make the limit 22 weeks, then I'd support that.
I'm not sure how mentioning that person hood could be granted to non- human things if they had a high level of consciousness robs a fetus of humanity.
Also, I do think that I fetus should have person hood at a certain point.
:roll:
You're an individual. Are you a human? yes or no.
Definition of individual
c : being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole
a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: such as
(1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution
: a particular person
Indivisible | Definition of Indivisible by Merriam-Webster
I'm just taken aback by your statement: "This isn't even true in the physical sense." - your response to what I said that an offspring of a human couple can only be a human.
I mean, it can't be a dog......or an insect.....it can only be human! It's only logical. And....
I think biology will support me on that.
All people die, at different stages in life (for various reasons) - a toddler, a pre-adolescent, at puberty, at pre-teen stage, or adulthood.....and lots die from old age! Some have congenital conditions, some are stricken with rare diseases.
Therefore, it's just part of life that some unborn die (at various stages of development, too).
Some even die at childbirth.
The fetus is a person at the time of conception!
This is a way to strip away the fetus' humanity - because pro-choice know that what they want to do to the unborn, is something evil - something that shouldn't be done to a human being.
It's exactly like how Hitler dehumanized Jews, and slavers dehumanized Black people. :shrug:
Like I've stated before - whenever someone tries to dehumanize a people - you bet, they're up to
no good. They want to do something evil to those they've dehumanized.
an offspring of a human couple can only be a human. - Yah, the underlying template may have started out human. But I gave you the examples of fetuses affected by Thalidomide, by other drugs (opiates, usually), excessive alcohol. & bear in mind that in these cases, you only see the relatively mild outcomes - the seriously impacted fetuses typically die in utero, or were delivered dead. It's like someone who dies of cancer - cancer is apparently an unregulated growth issue - & you can ask the same question: Is the resulting cancer mass human? I tend to think not, because it kills the host, & therefore whatever agenda cancer may have, it's not to facilitate the life or health of the host.
All people die - Here, I'll go you orders of magnitude better: TMK, everything dies. Individuals, families, worlds, solar systems, galaxies, the universe (we think - there's still some discussion about whether the universe cycles endlessly, or not). Anything that does not die, we provisionally call God, or @ least a saint (possibly an angel, it's not really my field) - & of course, other religions have other categories. & Christianity typically considers the soul to be immortal, so that's our link to the eternal.
They do this very commonly, the pro-life people.
When they realize that their religious beliefs (for most) are not legally binding or persuasive, they look for something concrete on which to make a "solid" argument...so they look to science.
They believe that science decides it all...human DNA. And yet, science is completely objective, it applies no value, does not take individuals or society into consideration. Value and morals are subjective.
So the science aspect has nothing to do with ethics or morality...those are applied *subjectively*.
The fetus is a person at the time of conception!
How weird is that you're willing to grant personhood - in other words, you're going to categorize a
non-human as human, and yet you're saying the offspring of a human couple can only be deemed human
at a certain point?
No, it is not. That is FACT.
Why are you lying about him? He did not say it's not human before a certain point. He said it's not a person.
A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.
Again why post so many lies?The fetus is a person at the time of conception!
No, it is not. That is FACT.
Why are you lying about him? He did not say it's not human before a certain point. He said it's not a person.
A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.
A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.
A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.
You made a false claim. Stand your ground laws do NOT allow you to shoot someone just for stepping on your land. Almost everyone knows this...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?