ZOMBIE FORUMS

That's nearly impossible. I could just as easily ask you to make the choice to stop breathing.

Oh, hell! Ero, have you had sex? I haven't, I'm 6 years older than you. I may DIE before I do. If all I wanted was just sex, randomy, with random people I could get it. For the love of god I sell things for a living. Going to a bar and selling something to DRUNK people that they for the most part don't mind and might be looking for anyway would be SO easy.

OK, in the case of H_E's argument, he is married, you can't ask that in that case. And you can't ask people not to satisfy sexual urges (but masterbation/oral sex do that).

Don't tell me that you no one can keep from having sex. Sorry, I know from experience that it's not that goddamn inevitable.

An interesting point that your first point doesn't apply to third-trimester abortions, third trimester = 6 months = 3 months early, children MOSTLY wouldn't survive but babies just barely into the third trimester HAVE survived with proper medical care.



I guess I do, but, what the hell does that have to do with it? It is legal, at any time to drop a child off at a medical facility and walk the fuck away, and never have anything to do with it again, ever. No explanations, no excuses, no charge. OK, the kid grows up knowing he/she wasn't wanted. You always point that out. So what? If people are honest with themselves, most of them weren't planned. I'm sure it would hurt their self esteem to know it. Big damn deal. better than being dead.



Duh, that's an abortion too. Sorry. Just because you got Jack Daniels and a guy with a powerful left hook to do it instead of a doctor doesn't make it an accident. But you already knew I wouldn't defend that.



Once again I have to assume here that you are just mentioning a few extra things that came to mind rather than responding to me. I'm not at all surprised. People in their 20s can afford abortions and are less under the control of religious parents.
=======



Well that certainly was an impressive argument for the fact that having a child is not in your own best interests. Congratulations, I agree. But one thing I missed. Does that make anything about an abortion more or less moral??? How? It makes it more logical. But logic has very little room for agruing anything but the CONSISTENCY of morals. Funny that. Logic works great for computers but it makes shitty qualitative value judgements.

Oops. Also you never told me why killing is wrong, you just tried to cut into my actual belief that 3rd trimester abortions are wrong to argue with my hypothetical belief that killing in general for convenience is justified.

You never explained WHY dependance is somehow an executable offence. I mean, an infant is unlikely to survive when exposed to the elements (exposure. the earliest form of abortion). But does the fact that the child might be raised by the king of another country, kill you where three roads meet, solve the riddle of the Sphinx, marry your wife, father two children, blind himself and end up as a name for a complex that is part of a theory of human development written by a Sex-Obsessed Austrian who was never seen without a cigar (and probably didn't realize it was a phallic symbol) make the act of exposure somehow more or less heinous than killing a "parasite" that is still bloody well a member of your species with COMPLETE DNA (don't give me eggs and sperm, or cancer or amputation, that's just avoiding the issue) and potential requiring ONLY NOURISHMENT to become a COMPLETE human being.





Sorry? I thought we were talking about whether abortion is right or wrong, have you a non-moral argument for right and wrong? Amazing, I'd like to hear it!!! A moral argument is fine, if they back it up by researching the morality of it using empirical evidence, the scientific method, and measuring the "moral energy" of each act converted into either Ft/Lbs or Joules? WTF!?

If we are arguing legalization or not, well hell, I'll fight against illegalizing any number of things I consider immoral. (Dig up the prostitution thread) And probably fight against legalizing any (smaller of course) number of thing I don't necessarily consider "immoral". Traffic Laws for instance.

Have been reading this thread with some interest. Don't really have anything new to say in response to anyone, but I thought I'd throw out a thought experiment of sorts.

Assume we have John Doe, a healthy man who was injured and as a result is now in a coma. Although there is a small chance that he might recover at some point in the future, he has been declared braindead such that it would be considered legal to remove him from life support. (He is effectively a vegetable with no brain activity save that which automatically maintains his body's metabolic functions.)

Question: Would it be an immoral act to remove John Doe from life support?

I submit that anyone who considers it immoral to remove John Doe from life support may likewise maintain that it is immoral to abort any fetus, but that those who concede that John Doe may be morally removed from life support must similarly concede that at least some abortions (specifically, those occurring within the first trimester) are not immoral acts.

My justification for this assertion is based on the following premise:

An entity is considered human and accordingly entitled to human rights only when it meets certain criteria of both form and function.

My definitions of these criteria (which are, of course, open to debate but which I shall operate on for the duration of this explanation) are as follows:

The criteria of form involve both genotypic (DNA) and phenotypic (bodily) factors.

The criteria of function involve primarily the ongoing neural processes which make up that part of the human mind which can be scientifically investigated.*
* Yes, I'm using Science. Yes, it sticks in my craw to have to do so. >.<;;; But I feel it is necessary so as to avoid the sticky matter of belief that is the human soul, at which point I would have to abandon any hope of proceeding from premises whose truth or falsity we can all agree on.
Form: Any entity which meets either the genotypic or phenotypic standards has fulfilled the form-based criteria. Thus, amputees (who are genetically human-normal if not physically human-normal) are still considered humans. Similarly, genetic mutants whose form is similar enough to human-normal to enable them to meet the criteria of function may likewise be considered humans.

Function: Any entity which demonstrates processes sufficiently similar to those of the human-normal nervous system in inputs and outputs meets the criteria of function. Entities whose forms do not physically allow them to fulfill this criteria are not considered human, regardless of genetics. This serves to exclude entities such as skin or cancer cells.

The Time Factor: "An entity is considered human... only when it meets certain criteria." This serves to exclude both once-humans who have experienced massive brain trauma or beheading, as well as any entity which has never met the aforementioned criteria.

Acknowledgement: While the above definitions are vague enough to cause serious problems in borderline cases such as mentally retarded individuals, they are specific enough to suffice for the particular cases being considered here.

My justification for the above assertion is derived by the following line of reasoning from the aforementioned premises:

John Doe meets the criteria of form genotypically. So too does any given fetus.

John Doe meets the criteria of form phenotypically, both in a gross physical sense and in the possession of a nervous system which is capable of human-normal function. While this is true of near-birth fetuses, this is not true of any first trimester fetuses, which lack both the gross physical makeup and the nervous system characteristic of a human.

John Doe does not meet the criteria of function at the present moment, though he has in the past and he might at some time in the future. Again, near-birth fetuses may meet the criteria of function, but no first trimester fetus does, nor has it met said criteria at any point in the past, though it might at some time in the future.

John Doe's recovery is uncertain. Likewise, the probability of any first-trimester fetus surviving to birth is considerably less than 100%.*
* I don't have a hard statistic or source at the moment, and am about to fall asleep on my keyboard, so such will have to wait, but I believe that natural miscarriages occur in no less than 25% of pregnancies (quite possibly more).

Thus, a first trimester fetus is not only comparable to John Doe, but also has considerably less claim to humanity than he:

It does not possess a form capable of maintaining human-normal processes.

It has never met the functional criteria mentioned above required to be considered a human.

It is similar to John Doe in the possibility that it might one day be considered a human, but in both cases that possibility is just that: a possibility, rather than a guaranteed outcome.

Thus, performing some action that would reduce said possibility to zero is at the very least equivalent in either case (in terms of one's actions regarding another human being) and quite possibly less morally questionable in the case of the fetus than in the case of John Doe.

Whew. ::takes a deep breath::

As I mentioned earlier, I'm about to fall asleep, so there are most likely holes in this. Point them out to me, and I'll see if I can't patch whatever bugs snuck through.

I'm in full agreement with you here. I know that if I was a woman, I'd certainly want an abortion if I was raped, or the condom broke, etc.

But really, for some reason I just do not think this is something for us males to have an opinion on... They don't get pregnant, (Apart from in VERY distubing fan fiction, and that one episode of Red Dwarf.) women do.

That's a cop-out, like saying only psychopaths have the right to judge, defend, or control other psychopaths. It is an empirical fact that in a society the members of said society have to pass judgement on others who are not exactly like themselves, for many reasons (foremost among them being that the accused(s) might have an impact on the rest of society). This may be a little off topic (since I'm really pro-choice), but like Icy's pet peeve about assumptions, I really dislike isolationism. Now, on with my other points.

First, I think we can all aggree that it is fact that there is no specific instant where a fetus/egg&sperm become a bona fide human being. Thus, we have to either draw a distinct line ove which we shall not cross (read: abort), or we must disengage the fetus' humanity from the equation. The frst solution is problematic because of the "potential" argument (i.e. "The matter tha makes up my house cat could eventually become part of a human being, all it needs is nourishment and time and..." etc.), and because wherever we draw the line, there will always be defendable arguments for moving it up/back. So let's see what we can do with the second solution, trying to find a ay to disengage the fetus' humanity from the equation; I think I may have one:

Now, in modern political philosophy human beings are assumed to have certain rights, inaliable (which are few) and otherwise (which are many, and should be [IMO] defended; inluding free speach, self-determination, and so on). Now, one of the rights which I think we can aggree on is the right to be selfish, the right not to care about the problems of others, the right not to give to the needy, the right not to let your 34 year old son live at home any more, et cetera. Exercising this right very often probably will result in your being branded (and rightly so) a selfish bastard; but for the sake of individual sanity, isn't this a necessary right? If we don't have it, won't many of us (the well informed, the educated) just go insane with the responsibility? You almot certainly exercise this right yourself, whether you know it or not (in fact, you certainly do if you're able to make it to a leisure forum such as this, "Why aren't you helping those poor Indian children who stick their hands in boiling water to seperate silk? Well?"). So, that is what I believe to be a firm establshment of the right to be selfish, and now let's apply it to the two cases that have been brought up in this thread: The unwanted fetus and the braindead Mr. Doe and his grieved spouse.

With the dearly (brain) departed John Doe, I think it would be within Mrs. Doe's rights (if not exactly reasonable) for her to cut life support, except for one fact. In a marriage, you usually swear something along the lines of "in sickness and in health," and you aggree that you are able to support each other. By doing this, Jane Doe bound herself to John, and is responsible for his well-being. If she hadn't done this (that is, if they were mere acquaintences or even plain strangers), then what possible right could he have to her support? Does every brain-dead vegetable have the right to support from you|? Are you morally obligated to make sure that every other human being on the face of the earth is a well off as you are? No way.

With the fetus it's a clear-cut case of a leech, human or otherswise (as I discussed previously, we don't really have a way of determining it). So, whether or not you believe the fetus to be a person, the mother has the right to stop supporting it/him/her. An objection that could be raised is that having sex is to rearing a child as signing a marriage contract is to supporting a brain-dead spouse. Well, the flaw there is assuming that having sex is making a commitment, which it may or may not be. Certainly, it is not an acceptance of STDs, no more than walking down the street is an acceptance of getting hit by a car; both may happen, and you should probably be aware of them, but you are in no way responsible for them happening to you (unless you run out on the freeway or specifically search for a partner with an STD, in which case you're actually taking conscious steps towards getting hit/infected). But is sex an acceptance of a child? I don't know; I'm cold and I wanna go somewhere where it's warm, so I'll think about this point and argue it out later.

Thanks, Spei, for reading my post responding to that exact same assertion made earlier.

Braindead John Doe != fetus.

-MiB

Actually, that is what the whole "jury of your peers" is all about. You are supposed to be judged by people who would understand your life experience and know where you're coming from. It's no more a cop out than the US Jury System (which you *could* argue is a cop out. But you'd have a much harder time doing it)

You just rephrased the question, I gave an answer. And you seem to have missed my point the "Braindead John Doe" = "fetus." The difference is in the commitments that others have made to the Doe/fetus.





That's true, but we still don't have criminals trying other criminals (well, I guess we might, but there's not specific search for criminals to act as the jurymen. Would you have upper-class white males be the only ones to try upper-class white males?

Which is why it's random and weaned from there, it ensure that if there is a psycopath in the jury selection (who isn't a felon because those are excluded) he has a high probability of being on the jury. But because psycopaths and (upper-class white males for that matter) are relitively rare, there is a low chance of him being selected. On the other hand, women are not rare...

This is all true, but not what Asmo said. He said that men should not have an opinion. That's akin to saying "We've gotta have psychos try psychos, richies try richies, and the impoverished try the impoverished." I am arguing for the random selection, "trial-by-not-just-your-racial/social/religious/philosophical-brothers," mod of jury/law/morality. Women aren't rare, that's well and good, but neither are men, and except in cases of extremely screwy lottories, their will be both on a jury.

You do know that they wean down juries... It is perfectly feasable to get an entire jury of women.

But it isn't what we attempt to do (well, maybe lawyers for the prosecution/defense might, in specific cases, but on the whole, we as a society don't).

This is getting to be too fine of a point to discuss in here. Just answer me this: can you really defend the position that only women should be allowed to judge women? That's the (indirect) assertion Asmodeus made, and the one that I contend with. If you need a really long post to answer, may I suggest we create a new thread? I'll do the same if I wanna respond to you.

Let's not bring our personal issues into the debate now. But, for your information, I loathe myself. I loathe humanity and all it has ever "accomplished". My quote was a totally personal view. I apologize for mentioning it.



To that, I give:

If you have no life then it will never be bad. The reverse is true, but as stated before by others, no life is nuetral (unless you wish to bring religion into the matter). Acutally, the child doesn't even have a sense of awareness, of ego, of right/wrong. It would never know it missed out on anything. The mother, on the other hand, has by far developed her brain enough to recognize such things. Depending on the circumstances, she may feel secure and happy enough to let this child live. But if a mother is contemplating abortion, it's unlikely this is the case. It should be her choice since she will be the ego who is most affected. Ungh... I'm not making sense. -_- Fuckit... yes, I'm a bloody hypocrit, but the fact remains that the fetus does not care if it lives or dies, while the mother, who shoulders all the responsibility, does.

More quotes:


I put my own answer up to field this question. Sorry if it wasn't good enough for recognition.



Great quote. Seriously. Although, speaking of awareness - I just wanted to mention that some people might use this quote and interpret some kind of response such as "Walking down the street is unavoidable, having sex isn't." That's reaching off-topic, and besides that, it's insanely idealistic and unapplicable. Please, no one use that arguement.

But now is the point when I become extremely intimidated and meekly back off a bit. Smart as you are, a lot of you rationalize (very well, I might add)... I'm afraid of bringing my own personal issues more into this situation, and you rationalizing it out of context. So...

Haff fun.

Edit: fixed faulty coding

In reference to the point of John Doe, JD has no real hope of regaining his faculties, a fetus has a damn near certain shot at BECOMING human, JD is shot, the boy will not be human again. OK, put him away. The fetus has EVERYTHING IT TAKES to become human, (unlike skin cells, individual sperm and ovum etc.) all it needs is to be allowed to live.

Would you pull the plug on JD if you knew he would wake up in 6 months?

If he was my husband (no, I'm not female, I'm sayin' for the sake of the argument) I wouldn't, and I wouldn't have a right to (the marriage contract). If he was a friend or family member, I probably wouldn't off him then, either, but not because I have a responsibility to keep him alive, but because I personally want him to live. If Mr. Doe is just some random guy who needs intensive care and lots of money, then why the hell shouldn't I let him die? I've not committed myself to caring for him and I don't have any particular wish that he lives. Why do you assume that we are born with responsibility for others' welfare?

Its called anticipatory socialization. The more likely you think it is that some day you might end up in position x that John Doe is in, the more likely you are to sympathize with him.

Its a rather self-centered thing in the long run, mostly morality because "thats how I would want to be treated if I was in that position," sociopaths have trouble doing that if I recall correctly, perhaps Spei should be seeing a doc...

-MiB
Kidding

In this situation, when a patient is braindead, recovery means living without life support. Without being in intensive care. The brain will still be dead.



He will not regain a sufficient nervouse system. I said this earlier in the post, and I say it now.
- http://www.transweb.org/qa/qa_don/br_death.htm

- http://death.monstrous.com/definition_of_death.htm

- http://www.changesurfer.com/BD/Brain.html
- http://www.changesurfer.com/BD/Papers/Calixto1.html




What's is you definition of the term "to live"? Alive means that the heart is pumping, the lungs breathe in oxygen, so on and so forth
- http://dict.die.net/alive/

- http://www.books.md/A/dic/alive.php

- http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseact ... opic/Alive (boys and girl, religion is fun!)


But living can mean a number of different things. JD will never acknowledge the world again, he will never feel anything again, he has no brain. His brain is dead. Can you "live" without a brain?

...yes, I'm really bored, I do research and define things and become annoying pointing small details out when I'm bored...

Edit: The definitions for "alive".

Was reading this with intererst until Kali happened. Quotes, links, and OH HOW I HATE TEH WORLD!!!!1111oneone does not a debate make.