The pro choice philosophy... (1 Viewer)

[jallman]

Begin with this postulate:

All human life is valid and equal.

So, this seems a pretty natural assumption, right? WRONG!!! Now we must define human life, which is a multi dimensional question. In defining human life, you have to accept that DNA has a human definition which describes a double helix structure with alternate base pairs of the same 4 bases. These bases are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. Alternating attractions of these base pairs, in a double helix construction, create the unique deoxyribonucleic acid (hereafter referred to as DNA) specific to each individual human. This construction provides the road map to each individual human being and can only occur when a male and a female combine and conceive a new life during coitus. During this reproductive process, the male will contribute 23 chromosomes (or half a human’s DNA strands) and the female will contribute 23 chromosomes (or half of a human’s DNA strands) to bring about a new permutation of base sequences resulting in an individual and unique achievement: an entirely different and unique sequence of base pairs. The resulting permutation is the road map to developing a new human being.

However, it comes to the attention of those beings already in existence and sentience that these roadmaps are not the sum of existence. We, being of already presence and sound mind, recognize that these roadmaps are unique, however, they are nothing more than "blueprints". It is up to the woman, who gestates life within her own body, to accept or decline the development of these "blueprints" into individuals. It also is worthy of note, that as a matter of course, these "blueprints" can be lost forever once they are aborted. That is a consequence of uniqueness.

There is a responsibility of the “mother” that if she develops this unique DNA to the fullness of human life, that she must be forever attached to the resulting human/baby. This is a profound decision on the part of the woman. As a matter of course in the development, she must bond in such a way that only the mother can, by means of the fact that SHE shares a common attachment through her own contribution to the "blueprint", which she cannot escape. It, in its earliest stages, requires a decision on the part of the woman to nurture or deny the growth of this "blueprint". She may either accept the use of her bodily resources resultant in a biologically permanent attachment of the offspring, or she may deny her body in favor of her own pursuits. If she chooses the latter, then she has a medical/biological solution in terminating her pregnancy which in turn ends any obligation to the "blueprint" she arrests with her decision to abort. If she chooses the former, she has options which are not as absolute but merely societal constructs that ease her burden for granting development but leaves the source (a.k.a. mother) wanting in terms of her own influence over the propagation of her offspring. The moral determination lies with the mother alone, since she is the one who has to expend or withhold her resources to develop or deny personhood to the “blueprint”.

The woman has developed sentience, dreams, goals, pursuits, and needs that are addressed already by the Constitution and her own mother's willingness to develop her own "blueprint" to full maturation. The potential “blueprint” has none of these traits until allowed to develop. It only stands to reason that the woman should be considered first, as she is already viable to society, and the conceived “blueprint” is a potential that may or may not be realized, dependent upon the woman’s choice.

 

[Felicity]

I have a couple of questions

There is a responsibility of the “mother” that if she develops this unique DNA to the fullness of human life, that she must be forever attached to the resulting human/baby. This is a profound decision on the part of the woman. As a matter of course in the development, she must bond in such a way that only the mother can, by means of the fact that SHE shares a common attachment through her own contribution to the "blueprint", which she cannot escape.

What about the "father's" right to his "common attachment through [his] own contribution to the "blueprint", which [he] cannot escape?" You give "her" the right due to her genetic contribution--where's "his?"


You do clarify....

The moral determination lies with the mother alone, since she is the one who has to expend or withhold her resources to develop or deny personhood to the “blueprint”.

But, your argument for the woman's right over the "blueprint" is her genetic contribution. It seems that the effort needed to nurture the blueprint is a separate issue. Also--in this statement, you assume "personhood" is not yet conferred upon the "blueprint"--where do you get that notion? and when is personhood "conferred?"

 

[Iriemon]

Begin with this postulate:

All human life is valid and equal.

So, this seems a pretty natural assumption, right? WRONG!!! Now we must define human life, which is a multi dimensional question. In defining human life, you have to accept that DNA has a human definition which describes a double helix structure with alternate base pairs of the same 4 bases. These bases are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. Alternating attractions of these base pairs, in a double helix construction, create the unique deoxyribonucleic acid (hereafter referred to as DNA) specific to each individual human. This construction provides the road map to each individual human being and can only occur when a male and a female combine and conceive a new life during coitus. During this reproductive process, the male will contribute 23 chromosomes (or half a human’s DNA strands) and the female will contribute 23 chromosomes (or half of a human’s DNA strands) to bring about a new permutation of base sequences resulting in an individual and unique achievement: an entirely different and unique sequence of base pairs. The resulting permutation is the road map to developing a new human being.

However, it comes to the attention of those beings already in existence and sentience that these roadmaps are not the sum of existence. We, being of already presence and sound mind, recognize that these roadmaps are unique, however, they are nothing more than "blueprints". It is up to the woman, who gestates life within her own body, to accept or decline the development of these "blueprints" into individuals. It also is worthy of note, that as a matter of course, these "blueprints" can be lost forever once they are aborted. That is a consequence of uniqueness.

There is a responsibility of the “mother” that if she develops this unique DNA to the fullness of human life, that she must be forever attached to the resulting human/baby. This is a profound decision on the part of the woman. As a matter of course in the development, she must bond in such a way that only the mother can, by means of the fact that SHE shares a common attachment through her own contribution to the "blueprint", which she cannot escape. It, in its earliest stages, requires a decision on the part of the woman to nurture or deny the growth of this "blueprint". She may either accept the use of her bodily resources resultant in a biologically permanent attachment of the offspring, or she may deny her body in favor of her own pursuits. If she chooses the latter, then she has a medical/biological solution in terminating her pregnancy which in turn ends any obligation to the "blueprint" she arrests with her decision to abort. If she chooses the former, she has options which are not as absolute but merely societal constructs that ease her burden for granting development but leaves the source (a.k.a. mother) wanting in terms of her own influence over the propagation of her offspring. The moral determination lies with the mother alone, since she is the one who has to expend or withhold her resources to develop or deny personhood to the “blueprint”.

The woman has developed sentience, dreams, goals, pursuits, and needs that are addressed already by the Constitution and her own mother's willingness to develop her own "blueprint" to full maturation. The potential “blueprint” has none of these traits until allowed to develop. It only stands to reason that the woman should be considered first, as she is already viable to society, and the conceived “blueprint” is a potential that may or may not be realized, dependent upon the woman’s choice.

If this is the analsysis for the decision, and "the moral determination lies with the mother alone" why cannot a mother kill a one month old (or one year old) baby if she decides that she wants to reserve her resources? If the test of whether entitlement to life is whether the entity has developed "sentience, dreams, goals, pursuits, and needs" there is no reason why a mother making the moral determination cannot decide to abort her one month old baby.

 

[ngdawg]

If this is the analsysis for the decision, and "the moral determination lies with the mother alone" why cannot a mother kill a one month old (or one year old) baby if she decides that she wants to reserve her resources? If the test of whether entitlement to life is whether the entity has developed "sentience, dreams, goals, pursuits, and needs" there is no reason why a mother making the moral determination cannot decide to abort her one month old baby.

A) you cannot 'abort' a one-month old.
B) as a now-seperate individual, anyone can then nurture it through its natural existence, ie; adoption. The individual, while dependent on others as to its helplessness against forces of nature, is no longer dependent for its development to its 'host', aka mother.

Now that we've dispensed with the classroom theories, sorry to disappoint, but this pro-choicer's 'philosophy' is a bit more straight forward. Simply, I have the right to procreate or not. We don't force women who DON'T want to be mothers to be so, and we don't force women who WANT to be mothers to not be so. When given the option to have testing, I declined because *I* would not consider abortion for me. That does NOT give me the right to tell someone else what they should do with their own bodies and lives. We all have to live with our choices-I'm just glad we're here with rights to make them.

 

[Iriemon]

A) you cannot 'abort' a one-month old.

Huh? Of course you can. Deprive oxygen. It only takes a few minutes. There are other methods.

B) as a now-seperate individual, anyone can then nurture it through its natural existence, ie; adoption. The individual, while dependent on others as to its helplessness against forces of nature, is no longer dependent for its development to its 'host', aka mother.

This is a different standard than that proposed by Jallman, whom seemed to propose a "sentience, dreams, goals, pursuits, and needs" test for determining whether abortion is permitted.

But if we use your test, cannot an 6 month fetus be "separated and nurtured to its natural existance"? With medical improvements, viability as the test for when a fetus obtains human rights continues to move earlier and earlier in the gestation time frame.

 

[jallman]

Huh? Of course you can. Deprive oxygen. It only takes a few minutes. There are other methods.

Thats murder since the one year old has individuality already. See the difference in these two definitions.

Abort
To cause to terminate (a pregnancy) prematurely, especially before the fetus is viable.
To cause the expulsion of (an embryo or fetus) before it is viable.
To give premature birth to (an embryo or fetus).
To interfere with the development of; conclude prematurely: abort plans for a corporate takeover.
To terminate before completion: abort a trip because of illness; abort a takeoff.
To stop the progress of (a disease, for example).n.

Murder
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

 

[jallman]

I have a couple of questions
What about the "father's" right to his "common attachment through [his] own contribution to the "blueprint", which [he] cannot escape?" You give "her" the right due to her genetic contribution--where's "his?"

The father's rights are worthy of note, but not nearly as worthy of consideration as the mother's rights. The father does not have to contribute his own body to the development of the fetus. The mother has to make a commitment to the fetus that guarantees an attachment to the offspring. The father isnt even under a guarantee to provide for the mother.

You do clarify....
But, your argument for the woman's right over the "blueprint" is her genetic contribution. It seems that the effort needed to nurture the blueprint is a separate issue. Also--in this statement, you assume "personhood" is not yet conferred upon the "blueprint"--where do you get that notion? and when is personhood "conferred?"

Yes, the nurturing is a separate issue...I should have been more clear about this. On the topic of personhood, no the blueprint, though uniquely human in terms of its dna, does not have personhood because it lacks any development. Once the brain is fully connected to the central nervous system and awareness is established, then we can confer upon the fetus the status of personhood.

 

[Iriemon]

Thats murder since the one year old has individuality already. See the difference in these two definitions.

I will grant you the semantics -- the end result is the same.

 

[Busta]

Begin with this postulate:
All human life is valid and equal.
So, this seems a pretty natural assumption, right? WRONG!!! Now we must define human life, which is a multi dimensional question...

I agree with the postulate "All human life is valid and equal", and disregard the biological rationality as irrelevant.
We have a fundamental disagreement with what constitutes a human being, yours being the sum of the parts and mine being the possesion of a sole (and no, moles are not human beings because they do not posses a sole), so we have no opportunity for discussion.

 

[jallman]

I will grant you the semantics -- the end result is the same.

I can grant you that also...No child and No child. End result from either situation. However, for abortion, there is no child to be killed to start with.

 

[jallman]

I agree with the postulate "All human life is valid and equal", and disregard the biological rationality as irrelevant.
We have a fundamental disagreement with what constitutes a human being, yours being the sum of the parts and mine being the possesion of a sole (and no, moles are not human beings because they do not posses a sole), so we have no opportunity for discussion.

I would disagree...the point at which enoulment occurs has been a fierce debate in theology for ages...

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, the nurturing is a separate issue...I should have been more clear about this. On the topic of personhood, no the blueprint, though uniquely human in terms of its dna, does not have personhood because it lacks any development. Once the brain is fully connected to the central nervous system and awareness is established, then we can confer upon the fetus the status of personhood.

This is a different test for "personhood" than you appeared to suggest in your first post. At what point is the "brain is fully connected to the central nervous system and awareness is established"? And aren't these two completely different criteria? The brain may be fully connected to the central nervous system long before a person is "aware."

"Welcome to my camp, I guess you all know why you're here.
My name is Tommy, and I became aware this year."

 

[Iriemon]

I can grant you that also...No child and No child. End result from either situation. However, for abortion, there is no child to be killed to start with.

The accuracy of the last sentence depends upon when an a "child" is created.

 

[Busta]

I would disagree...the point at which enoulment occurs has been a fierce debate in theology for ages...

As a matter of philosophy, we were individual beings even before the Earth was created. We became Human 'Beings when we were given a Human body, which happend at conception.

 

[jallman]

This is a different test for "personhood" than you appeared to suggest in your first post. At what point is the "brain is fully connected to the central nervous system and awareness is established"? And aren't these two completely different criteria? The brain may be fully connected to the central nervous system long before a person is "aware."

"Welcome to my camp, I guess you all know why you're here.
My name is Tommy, and I became aware this year."

I am not sure how you determine that this is a different test for personhood but ok. Awareness and sentience is the test for personhood and has been since my opening. Awareness, for the purposes laid out here, is the fetus's ability to distinguish self, experience pain, experience pleasure, and retain those experiences. It is a very clear demarcation on the timeline of development, occuring when the CNS and brain are completely connected.

 

[jallman]

As a matter of philosophy, we were individual beings even before the Earth was created. We became Human 'Beings when we were given a Human body, which happend at conception.

And so...when do you believe that the individual enters the body? This is what is termed ensoulment...and something I am really not interested in except where it brings a good discussion from you, so I really dont have much of an opinion on that matter save those of other scholars and theologians.

 

[Iriemon]

As a matter of philosophy, we were individual beings even before the Earth was created. We became Human 'Beings when we were given a Human body, which happend at conception.

How are we given a "human body" at conception? At conception there is single celled egg smaller than this period "." It is not a human body. It doesn't have arms, legs, head, nose ears, eyes, or anything characterist of a human body.

 

[Busta]

I can grant you that also...No child and No child. End result from either situation. However, for abortion, there is no child to be killed to start with.

Since the legal and biological term "child" is plyable, depending solly on our whim and present day understanding of our world, it seems unreasonable to use "child" as an absolute.

 

[Iriemon]

I am not sure how you determine that this is a different test for personhood but ok. Awareness and sentience is the test for personhood and has been since my opening. Awareness, for the purposes laid out here, is the fetus's ability to distinguish self, experience pain, experience pleasure, and retain those experiences. It is a very clear demarcation on the timeline of development, occuring when the CNS and brain are completely connected.

OK -- at what point in the gestation period does this occur? I'm sure you said this before, I apologize, I can't bring myself to wade thru 5000 pages of posts on this stuff.

 

[jallman]

OK -- at what point in the gestation period does this occur? I'm sure you said this before, I apologize, I can't bring myself to wade thru 5000 pages of posts on this stuff.

Oh no, dont sweat it...I wouldnt want to read back through all that either. It occurs between the 22-24th week. Now, some scientists will argue that until the brain waves regulate and become completely stable (showing alternations between sleep and wakefulness), then awareness is not established...and this happens around the 28th week. However, I am not comfortable with this because I feel if the biological framework is in place, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the new individual.

 

[Busta]

And so...when do you believe that the individual enters the body? This is what is termed ensoulment...and something I am really not interested in except where it brings a good discussion from you, so I really dont have much of an opinion on that matter save those of other scholars and theologians.

That's the $64 dollar question, isn't it?
Since I can not answer that with any degree of certainty, I referr to my defalt position -- L.isten O.bserve V.alue and E.mpower.

 

[jallman]

How are we given a "human body" at conception? At conception there is single celled egg smaller than this period "." It is not a human body. It doesn't have arms, legs, head, nose ears, eyes, or anything characterist of a human body.

Actually, not to put too fine a point on it, but it does have ONE characteristic of a human body...and that is a unique DNA sequence...but as I said, this does not count as a human being.

 

[Busta]

How are we given a "human body" at conception? At conception there is single celled egg smaller than this period "." It is not a human body. It doesn't have arms, legs, head, nose ears, eyes, or anything characterist of a human body.

I approach the issue from a philosophical standing, not a biological one.

One's body does not need to possess a litmiss test of arbitrary features in order to belong to said person.

That single celled egg may be all that their body is, but it is still theirs, not the mother's.

I see the single celled egg as a "Person", thus being afforded the Right to Life as enumerated in the 14th. Amendment.

Since a "person's" Right to Life superseeds the Rights of other's, the Unborn Child's (thats a legal term, no flag on the field) Right to Life over-rules the Mother's Right to privacy (or what ever ells) from conception forward; with the single exception of when the Unborn Child's Right to Life would infringe on the Mother's Right to Life.

Roe-v-Wade section 9a. agrees with this supperseeding of Rights.

 

[Busta]

How are we given a "human body" at conception? At conception there is single celled egg smaller than this period "." It is not a human body. It doesn't have arms, legs, head, nose ears, eyes, or anything characterist of a human body.

I forgot to address that directly.
In a nutshell, the production of a ZEF is the mother and father's "Implied Concent" for that ZEF to achieve birth.
http://dictionary.law.com
Conception is the physical, mechanical, literal act of giving the sole a body. It's a gift. When the sole enters the gift, I don't know, but the gift is given at conception.

 

[Iriemon]

I approach the issue from a philosophical standing, not a biological one.

One's body does not need to possess a litmiss test of arbitrary features in order to belong to said person.

That single celled egg may be all that their body is, but it is still theirs, not the mother's.

I see the single celled egg as a "person", thus being afforded the Right to Life as enumerated in the 14th. Amendment.

Since a person's Right to Life superseeds the rights of other's, the unborn child's (thats a legal term, no flag on the field) right to Life over-rules the Mother's right to privacy (or what ever ells) from conception forward; with the single exception of when the unborn child's right to life would infringe on the Mother's right to life.

Roe-v-Wade section 9a. agrees with this supperseeding of rights.

Perhaps not a "litmus test" -- but there are certainly characteristics of a human body (as opposed to the body of any other creature) none or few of which the single celled egg simply has.

Similarly, while I understand both sides in this debate like to frame the issues using words most favorable to their position, it is difficult for me to see the single cell egg as a "child" -- it does not have a human body, it doesn't breathe, cry, play etc. It is no more a "child" than a tadpole.