*opens up a can of worms*

[FrankChodorov]

your "personhood" argument by any definition of personhood that bio-ethicists have come up with, also justifies infantacide, and killing old and retarded people.

I wasn't aware that infants, old, retarded people don't feel pain which was one of the conditions I described for personhood/human being status...

can you cite any evidence to support your argument?

the whole Terri Schiavo case hinged on this question and if those conditions were not met who was to decide her fate...

And how do you know that a preborn person doesn't feel pain. Just because it doesn't have the aparatous to screem or cry to let you know it feels it.

so you concede the point about old and retarded persons?

because it doesn't have the brain development as of yet which is required for sentience...

are you suggesting for instance that a blastula feels pain?

Pain as either a neccessary or sufficient condition for personhood doesn't make sense. Animals feel pain. Does that make it wrong to [kill them] now. And how do you know that a Zygote doesn't feel pain on some level.  As always, you're beliefs and definitions are wholey confusing and inconsistant with each other.

some people believe so...but we are talking about potential human life and human beings achieving personhood status - not animals as animals are not sentient

a zygote doesn't feel pain or can't have consciousness because it doesn't have a developed central nervous system or brain yet...

when are you going to stop bailing hay?

[Gabo]

Gabo you're talking in Circles. We've already discussed that.  Our point is that the Mother and Father are the ones that FORCED that entity worthy of moral standing into that possition to need care to begin with. Because they're the ones that put the baby in that situation they have a responsibility to take care of it -- untill it can take care of itself. That's true whether the Baby's INSIDE the womb OR OUTSIDE the womb.

I did not want to talk in circles and did not start it.
Other people began to discuss property rights once again, so I responded to that.

Your point may be that the Mother and Father have a contractual obligation to have and care for the child, but other people are rehashing arguments about the mother and her right to own her body.

You really haven't yet given a straight answer to me (though you haven't contradicted my statements about what you believe either.)

That is because I don't have a straight answer to give.
There is no way for me to determine whether sex is an implied contract to have and care for a baby.

My only stance on that is that people should sign a contract before they have sex.
If, for instance, a couple using protection signed a contract ahead of time pointing out their complete disapproval of concieving a baby in the process of sex, I would say they can bear no responsibility if conception occurs.

As to uncontracted sex, I feel it is up in the air as to whether there is an obligation to the baby.
Under no circumstances, however, do I feel this obligation would extend past birth.
If the parents don't wish to have the baby, there is no reason they should be forced to care for it once it is no longer dependent upon them.

Do you believe it's OK for a parent to kick a new Born or 2 year old out of the house if there's nobody to take care of it because they don't want to? Do they have the right to evict the Baby from their property after birth?

There are thousands of people willing to adopt children, so saying that parents should be forced to care for a child is ludicrous.

[tracysaboe]

Your point may be that the Mother and Father have a contractual obligation to have and care for the child, but other people are rehashing arguments about the mother and her right to own her body.

OK. My Bad.  I saw circles in there somewhere anyway

That is because I don't have a straight answer to give.
There is no way for me to determine whether sex is an implied contract to have and care for a baby.

My only stance on that is that people should sign a contract before they have sex.
If, for instance, a couple using protection signed a contract ahead of time pointing out their complete disapproval of concieving a baby in the process of sex, I would say they can bear no responsibility if conception occurs.

As to uncontracted sex, I feel it is up in the air as to whether there is an obligation to the baby.
Under no circumstances, however, do I feel this obligation would extend past birth.
If the parents don't wish to have the baby, there is no reason they should be forced to care for it once it is no longer dependent upon them.

fair enough.

Do you believe it's OK for a parent to kick a new Born or 2 year old out of the house if there's nobody to take care of it because they don't want to? Do they have the right to evict the Baby from their property after birth?

There are thousands of people willing to adopt children, so saying that parents should be forced to care for a child is ludicrous.

Well the question is. If their ISN'T anybody willing to care for it -- is it acceptable to evict the child and abanden it.

Perhaps you believe that's a hypothetical absurdity, and if so -- please say so. I would probably tend to agree with you. But I'm asking a question about morality. And I find it a bit of a lazy way out to simply state "that situation would never happen because their are lots of people who want to adopt."

Perhaps you feel the question is pointless. Then please state why. Or at least tell me so, I can respect that.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

Tracy-

I take it your lack of response to my post tacitly concedes the points I have made...

[Gabo]

Well the question is. If their ISN'T anybody willing to care for it -- is it acceptable to evict the child and abanden it.

Perhaps you believe that's a hypothetical absurdity, and if so -- please say so. I would probably tend to agree with you. But I'm asking a question about morality. And I find it a bit of a lazy way out to simply state "that situation would never happen because their are lots of people who want to adopt."

Perhaps you feel the question is pointless. Then please state why. Or at least tell me so, I can respect that.

On moral grounds, I would say it is completely disgusting to abandon a child, especially one that is very young.

But on legal grounds, the decision of parents to stop supporting their child cannot depend on the availability of others to take care of the child.  The rights in question of those are the parents, and not those of the child.

Looking at the problem in a practical manner, if there are two people so hateful and unloving of life that they would abandon their child and let it die, isn't it possible the neighbors would be aware of such hateful people and maybe keep an eye on the child?  Or at least ask questions when the parents aren't with their child, and then retrieve the child to take it to an adoption agency?  The chances of someone the parents associate with noticing that they no longer have a child are rather high.

As to someone not being available to care for the child, that in itself is extremely unlikely.

[tracysaboe]

Well the question is. If their ISN'T anybody willing to care for it -- is it acceptable to evict the child and abanden it.

Perhaps you believe that's a hypothetical absurdity, and if so -- please say so. I would probably tend to agree with you. But I'm asking a question about morality. And I find it a bit of a lazy way out to simply state "that situation would never happen because their are lots of people who want to adopt."

Perhaps you feel the question is pointless. Then please state why. Or at least tell me so, I can respect that.

On moral grounds, I would say it is completely disgusting to abandon a child, especially one that is very young.

But on legal grounds, the decision of parents to stop supporting their child cannot depend on the availability of others to take care of the child.  The rights in question of those are the parents, and not those of the child.

Looking at the problem in a practical manner, if there are two people so hateful and unloving of life that they would abandon their child and let it die, isn't it possible the neighbors would be aware of such hateful people and maybe keep an eye on the child?  Or at least ask questions when the parents aren't with their child, and then retrieve the child to take it to an adoption agency?  The chances of someone the parents associate with noticing that they no longer have a child are rather high.

As to someone not being available to care for the child, that in itself is extremely unlikely.

Probably.

Well, again. It least your consistant. And if Adoption wasn't so regulated it would even be less likely you've have an abandend child.

Of course this is why I say that if medicine wasn't so socialized viability would be much earlier then it is now. It's quite possible that there would be technologies availible for transplanting babies saftly from one womb to another.

If we had a complete free market in medicine and adoption. (Well, in everything quite frankly.) with-in 10 years abortion would be so rare that this whole conversation would be largely moot.

Currently though I'm paying taxes for police and court to defend that which I consider to be murderers and I have a problem with that.

Anarchy is really the only solution to this debate on all sides.

Tracy

[intergraph19]

I did read the previous posts and my comment comes from the fact that a child being property is infered in the idea that a woman's "right" to her body, superceeds the right of the child to live in the first place; meaning the child has no such right, and is subsiquently, the biological property of the mother.  Slaves also had no right to live if thier masters choose not to let them.  Hence the comparison.

You possess NO rights when you are on someone else's property.
Anything you are allowed to do is a privelage, and subject to the owner's discretion.

If a property owner wants you to leave their property and you refuse to, they have every right to force you to leave.

Okay, so if you come to my house, I can just kill you outright?  I mean, you have no rights on my land right?

There is a BIG difference between telling someone who is independent and physically able to understand you and walk off your land, and an unborn child who was concieved by the actions of the "property owner".

[intergraph19]

your "personhood" argument by any definition of personhood that bio-ethicists have come up with, also justifies infantacide, and killing old and retarded people.

I wasn't aware that infants, old, retarded people don't feel pain which was one of the conditions I described for personhood/human being status...

can you cite any evidence to support your argument?

the whole Terri Schiavo case hinged on this question and if those conditions were not met who was to decide her fate...

So what does that mean for people with severe diabetes and people with leprasy who don't feel pain?  Deciding when someone's life has meaning and when it does not is very dangerous indeed.  Not something I'd like most humans to decide for other people.

[Dreepa]

I have heard prolifers antiabortioners say that abortion is ok in case of rape.

Isn't it still a life?

[FrankChodorov]

your "personhood" argument by any definition of personhood that bio-ethicists have come up with, also justifies infantacide, and killing old and retarded people.

I wasn't aware that infants, old, retarded people don't feel pain which was one of the conditions I described for personhood/human being status...

can you cite any evidence to support your argument?

the whole Terri Schiavo case hinged on this question and if those conditions were not met who was to decide her fate...

So what does that mean for people with severe diabetes and people with leprasy who don't feel pain?  Deciding when someone's life has meaning and when it does not is very dangerous indeed.  Not something I'd like most humans to decide for other people.

this is the problem with these type of debates online - people just snip portions of threads.

we have already gone over this.

the essential qualities of a human being that makes them deserving of rights are:

sentience - which includes consciousness and the ability to feel pain.

so are these diabetics and lepers fully conscious while not being able to feel pain?

if yes then: next question please!

[KBCraig]

I have heard prolifers antiabortioners say that abortion is ok in case of rape.

Not me.

Isn't it still a life?

Yes, it is. That's why my only exception is "life of the mother". Competing harms make for tough decisions, but pregnancies that put the mother's life in clear danger are extremely rare.

Kevin

[tracysaboe]

I have heard prolifers antiabortioners say that abortion is ok in case of rape.

Isn't it still a life?

You haven't heard it from any pro-lifers here that I'm aware of.

I talk about the case of rape in my paper posted a couple times in this thread too though. Many times the women feels just as violated -- if not more so by the abortion itself and comes out of the abortionist center feeling more tramatised then before she went in.  People who "defend" rape and incest victums right to an abortion rarely ever actually go and ask rape and incest victums.

TRacy

[Gabo]

If we had a complete free market in medicine and adoption. (Well, in everything quite frankly.) with-in 10 years abortion would be so rare that this whole conversation would be largely moot.

Agreed.
We all argue too much over so many issues that often would solve themselves.

Currently though I'm paying taxes for police and court to defend that which I consider to be murderers and I have a problem with that.

Most taxes are voluntary, and I would encourage you to not pay any taxes that you don't support and aren't liable to pay.
I won't go into that though, it is for another thread.

Anarchy is really the only solution to this debate on all sides.

I think most people here would agree (though some would call it "Voluntaryism" or "Big L Libertarianism" or other catchy names).

Okay, so if you come to my house, I can just kill you outright?  I mean, you have no rights on my land right?

I have no rights, only privelages that you may grant me.
You cannot kill me outright unless you have made it clear I am unwanted and I refuse to leave.

For example, if you had various signs saying "NO ENTRY UNLESS PERMITTED", then you have every right to shoot intruders.
Or, if you see me in your home and tell me "Leave now I will use force to defend my property", you have every right to shoot me if I refuse to leave your home.

But if you put out a welcome mat and a sign for free pie, you can't simply shoot me for walking on your property.

There is a BIG difference between telling someone who is independent and physically able to understand you and walk off your land, and an unborn child who was concieved by the actions of the "property owner".

I understand that sex may be an implied contract to carry and give birth to a child, but once that child is no longer dependent it is like anyone else.

The parents could feasibly order the child to leave their property.

[Pat McCotter]

the essential qualities of a human being that makes them deserving of rights are:

sentience - which includes consciousness and the ability to feel pain.

What about the ability to feel pleasure? Which is more important?

What is consciousness? If a computer passes the Turing test, is it conscious?

[FrankChodorov]

the essential qualities of a human being that makes them deserving of rights are:

sentience - which includes consciousness and the ability to feel pain.

What about the ability to feel pleasure? Which is more important?

What is consciousness? If a computer passes the Turing test, is it conscious?

you need higher brain function for pleasure/pain and consciousness