It's important to note that what one person see's as a value....another doesn't. And this is why it is so important that the constitutional rights of the minority are protected from any majority. Now as far as abortion.....hey....no one likes it. But we have to realize that in many cases not only is an abortion absolutely necessary it is also morally justified. We can reduce the total number of abortions done yearly by over 95% if we simply just educate kids before they can either get someone pregnant or become pregnant in abstinence, STD's, Birth Control and how to get and use Plan B and Morning After Drugs. THIS IS THE SOLUTION. Now abortion will NEVER be made illegal in the United States so it's high time the pro-lifers came to terms with this and got off their high horse and support education. AA
Dude I am on my phone and when I get home I will embarrass you on this. The gop platform is pro life officially. Better run now
Nope, Trump (as of today, who knows what he'll drool tomorrow) is Anti-Choice. Now tell me again how you do approve of "murdering" a "child" because his father was a rapist.......
Which part is the guesswork? (1) We know (from the EEG in fact) that the onset of global neural integration is about week 34 so the facts tell us it would be impossible to incorporate experiences before that event. (2) We know (from measurements of blood chemistry) that the brain is sedated while the fetus is inside the womb. That fact makes it impossible for the fetus to incorporate experiences even if global neural integration completes before birth. (3) We know (from measurements of blood chemistry) that the brain gets less sedative and more oxygen at birth. That marks the first moment the brain (assuming no defects) is able to incorporate experiences that might inform its conscious thoughts as the mind begins to mature. The only uncertainty or guesswork I see here is that we might declare a newborn to be a person, and later discovery that it had some defect (e.g. Anencephaly) which would prevent it from ever incorporating experience into actual personhood. Most newborns with anencephaly do not survive long (although there have been exceptions). I think most of us are uncomfortable with the idea (in those last 2-4 weeks) that the brain is potentially ready to use (as far as we know) and the pregnant host might decide to terminate the pregnancy after so many hurdles have been crossed. What would you think about removing all existing abortion restrictions and creating a new law: If a woman wants an abortion after week 34: (1) If the woman or fetus has a health issue, the abortion is be permitted. Otherwise (healthy woman and fetus) continue... (2) If an EEG confirms that full neural integration has NOT been accomplished, the abortion is permitted. Otherwise (full neural integration confirmed) continue... (3) Attempt to safely remove the fetus (by inducing labor or c-section based on the woman's preference), if that fails, the abortion is accomplished. Otherwise... (4) If the newborn survives birth and the mother still does not want the child, the newborn is available for adoption. I am not sure I am comfortable with this, but since the timeframe is so limited and it seems so unlikely to me that a woman would go through 8 months of pregnancy and THEN decide she wants an abortion... this seems like a reasonable compromise (or maybe it's just that I have not had enough coffee today).
You make claims without evidence. We know for a fact that the fetus has a EEG that is the same as a person at week 24 to week 28. Please show me the exact test that shows global neural integration. What is that test called?
Correction: I meant neuronal, not neural (now that I check the source). The EEG can detect (at approximately week 34 +/- 2) the ONSET of global neuronal integration based on Scientific American: "Roughly two months later" ( later than week 24-28 ) "synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration." I do not know if the EEG is sensitive enough to detect the COMPLETION of global neuronal integration (do you?). If it cannot detect completion, then we are only dealing with a window of about five weeks. What would you think about the following (revised) rules for a woman who wants an abortion (assuming all other legal restrictions are eliminated): (1) If the woman or fetus has a health issue, the abortion is permitted. Otherwise (healthy woman and fetus) continue... (2) If the woman is less than 32 weeks pregnant, the abortion is permitted. Otherwise (onset of neuronal integration is possible) continue... (3) If an EEG confirms that full neuronal integration has NOT started, the abortion is permitted. Otherwise (completion status unknown) continue... (4) Attempt to safely remove the fetus (by inducing labor or c-section based on the woman's preference), if that fails the abortion is (unintentionally) accomplished. Otherwise... (5) If the newborn survives birth and the mother still does not want the child, the newborn is available for adoption. Evidence is from Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
The number of times you say the phrase "you think" or "such and such people think" is correlated with the degree to which you are probably perceived as close-minded. You would do well to listen to other people's ideas rather than frame them in your own, comfortable, and straw-man-angled words. Yea you're right it was a bit hasty of me to bring attention only to the birth. The woman does face an admittedly challenging 9 months of pregnancy. I will admit that, happy? But I don't retract my statement that the man's duty to support the child - one that I think the woman should not have to worry about so much (doesn't need to be a bread winner, not necessary), i.e. a trade-off - is also a burden itself, and time-wise lasts much, much longer. 15 years > 9 months, you understand that right? Or do you want to double-down on your inability to empathize with certain people?
I seriously disagree with that. Did you even try to understand the distinction I made about the two kinds of "wrong"?
(1) Argument from authority (and not a very credible one (public schools)) (2) Dodged my point about your personal opinion (3) Missing the point. I agree that rights can be "constructed" in the sense of a community's norms. But your use of rights was meta-physical, which is just mysticism. Civilization is indeed characterized by private property rights. But those are just examples of what I said before: violence used to suppress parasitism. My denial of meta-physical rights simply doesn't virtue signal to you in the right way, causing you feelings of unease and expectations that I'm hostile to you. It's really as simple as that.
I just read an article this morning on a rather extreme case. What do you think of this particular version of freedom of choice.... that this woman is advocating? http://dianebederman.com/ethics/582-abortion-and-human-rights-tribunal
More evidence of bizarre misunderstanding or just plain lack of comprehension of the terminology. That you then project from your own shortcomings onto others goes beyond ludicrous. So I am not going waste any further time with your inane misconceptions. Instead I am going to stick with reality as it stands in the Law of the Land for We the People. Have a nice day!
I see what you are saying but your theory has a very hazy and grey area of when consciousness begins. Is there evidence that global neural integration is necessary for consciousness? Its all just a guess. We would NEVER allow for that level of uncertainty at the end of life
I thought we had all agreed here that consciousness (aka sentience) first happened well after birth. If you mean consciousness (aka ability to "store" or incorporate an experience as an element of personhood) you and I disagree about the moment that can first happen (but only by a few weeks). I believe that cannot happen until the brain of the fetus is awake (which happens at actual birth) and (I believe) you are suggesting it could potentially happen as soon as the EEG indicates global neuronal integration is STARTED. That led to my attempt to formalize a rule that would cover that grey area. The revised version (taking into account the fact that I do not know if an EEG can identify the moment integration is complete) was (assuming all other legal restrictions are eliminated): (1) If the woman or fetus has a health issue, the abortion is permitted. Otherwise (healthy woman and fetus) continue... (2) If the woman is less than 32 weeks pregnant, the abortion is permitted. Otherwise (onset of neuronal integration is possible) continue... (3) If an EEG confirms that full neuronal integration has NOT started, the abortion is permitted. Otherwise (completion status unknown) continue... (4) Attempt to safely remove the fetus (by inducing labor or c-section based on the woman's preference), if that fails the abortion is (unintentionally) accomplished. Otherwise... (5) If the newborn survives birth and the mother still does not want the child, the newborn is available for adoption. These rules would address the grey area between neuronal integration (when the brain has an opportunity to find out what is going on in the body) and actual birth (when the brain is awake enough to incorporate the experience). There is no requirement here for the fetus or newborn to be conscious as in sentient.
They are not bad guidelines. If they were law I would not be against them. But they could be subject to change when the science improves. There are more unknowns than knowns.
One could argue that the error was in authorizing IVF services (paid by the taxpayers) for a 45-year old woman with acknowledged health problems. Having stepped in it already, it seems only fair that they should be obligated to help clean up the mess by eliminating the extra embryo from a woman who might not be healthy enough to carry twins. I assume there were other fertilized eggs which were discarded earlier in the process (that would be typical of IVF procedures) so "life" is not the real issue behind the objections.
You almost hid the FACT that you can't tell me what the difference is between an abortion done due to rape and one done due to consensual sex....almost.. It has nothing to do with rapists proliferating........but it does have to do with the fact that those against abortion think the woman should be punished for having consensual sex by being forced to give birth.
Agreed. Any time scientific knowledge increases it would be reasonable to adjust the relevant laws based on new information. Thank you for participating in this discussion. It has helped me improve my understanding of the issues.
Post without substance. - - - Updated - - - Ah this post has a bit more substance, but too bad it's just a couple of cult slogans you learned in elementary school. Have a nice day yourself!
That's not really the angle I'm coming from though. It's more just proliferation of kin. Yes. I think the rest of your post complicates things too much. Nietzsche didn't care about society in the sense of its material well-being (for which he mocked the English), only its cultural well-being, i.e. its ability to produce great men. And yes, specifically men. Nietzsche's views on women are well-known to be not very flattering, their only role really just being child-bearers: Insofar as women are heroic, they are not "women" according to Nietzsche - they are "men".
In a world that values the propagation and proliferation of qualities that will create more great men, I would argue that abortion should be legal (and, in some cases, encouraged). These are just a few cases that might require an abortion: (1) If a woman does not want to have a child, but you force her to have a child, whatever genetic foundation led her to want an abortion will proliferate until you have a significant number of people in the future who do not want children. (2) If a family already has as many children as they can afford, a new (unexpected) pregnancy could put the future of their existing children at risk (preventing them from maximizing their potential to be great). What would Nietzsche say about that? (3) If a woman is pregnant with a defective fetus, would Nietzsche recommend an abortion or would he want the family, and society, to invest resources on a defective person?
Do you mean rape? If not, then the woman did want to have the child. English, shop-keeper mentality. Greatness isn't measured in dollars. He'd probably have no problems aborting it. But like I said before, I'm not an absolutist. Cases arise where I'd agree with an abortion. But as a general cultural thing, I think it should be rejected, and used only as a last resort when the balance of values is tipped in its favor.
""""Greatness isn't measured in dollars."""" No, but paying the bills for school tuition, food, clothes, electricity, housing, transportation, medical bills, extra-curricular education, toys , diapers, IS ! Philosophers and others who will never be pregnant have a tendency to forget the practicalities of real life.
