Hi, Cop.  Man, those are alot of good and difficult questions.  Actually, I wasn't planning at all to run from this issue.  I just would have found it difficult to to give any answer based on your view that an embryos is just an embryos and that the human embryos was nothing different than that of an animals because of the brain thing?  I don't mean to sound simplifying but I was simply (lol) disagreeing with what you said based on the fact (? dare I say fact..lol) that the human embyos is different because it cannot but develop (if allowed) into another human life form.

Anyways, give me a few days to ponder your questions and see if I can give any kind of answer.

Errrrm...I find Cops explanation totally unacceptable to me.  The reason why I delay an answer or response is because he has a strong belief about something.  I do to.  I think that I made my point.  But he raised some difficult questions for me to answer.  Would a non answer prove me wrong and him right.  Absolutely not.  But I still want to answer his questions.  I am continuing to think about HOW to answer the qusetions.

For starters, the organism being killed should not be human.  That is a key requirement.  

A retarded person does not have any 'higher cognition'.  Neither does a person in a coma.

An embryo is not a part of the mothers body.  That is a ludicrous thing to say.  It has different DNA, different chromosomes, different sex.  

Abortion only becomes a matter of privacy after the central question has been skirted, which is "Is an unborn baby a person deserving of rights?"

Why are you mentioning religion?

For starters, the organism being killed should not be human.  That is a key requirement.

So, you're against capital punishment and participation in war?  Few of those who oppose abortion passionately are against killing fully aware, conscious adults, yet they pine away over masses of human cells that lack brain function.

A retarded person does not have any 'higher cognition'.  Neither does a person in a coma.

People in comas have full civil rights, including property and social relationships.  Moreover, there is always the possibility of a cure.  

An embryo is not a part of the mothers body.  That is a ludicrous thing to say.  It has different DNA, different chromosomes, different sex.

It depends on the mother's body for nourishment and survival.  In every  practical respect, it is a part of the mother's body.  

Abortion only becomes a matter of privacy after the central question has been skirted, which is "Is an unborn baby a person deserving of rights?"

That central question has not been "skirted" but faced head-on.  The answer is that the mother is legally qualified to make that decision until the pregnancy reaches the state where the fetus can survive outside the womb.  At that point, it begins to acquire personhood status, although the status is not completely reached until the moment of birth.  (No death certificates are issued for fetuses that fail to survive birth.)

Why are you mentioning religion?

The vast majority of people who oppose abortion do so for religious reasons.  The largest Christian group, the RCC, even forbids birth control for strictly religious reasons.  There is not rationality to such a position, which many outside of that denomination consider immoral.

Come on, be reasonable man!  Killing a criminal or an enemy on the battlefield is different that killing a human being just because it is convienient.

If you can put stipulations on the morality of killing, then I see no reason why I should not have the same right.  The question can only be over whether the stipulations are reasonable.  I've already pointed out why embryos and fetuses should not be regarded "human beings" in the same sense that babies, children, and adults are.

Quote

People in comas have full civil rights, including property and social relationships. Moreover, there is always the possibility of a cure.

Yes, they have full civil rights, but they do not have the 'personhood' requirements you have laid out.  So using your own reasoning, they should not have full civil rights.

No, they do not have the straw man 'personhood' requirements that you have erroneously attributed to me.  My actual criteria include not only a level of cognitive functionality (which retarded people have and comatose people can potentially regain), but possessions and social relationships, neither of which in-utero fetuses have.

A newborn baby depends on it's mothers body for nourishment and survival.  It is not part of its mother's body.  It is just inside it's mothers body.  A person in a coma depends on others for nourishment and survival.  The only difference is that these people don't live inside their caretakers.

We are talking about 'unborns', not newborns.  Such slips reveal your confusion on the subject--an inability and unwillingness to distinguish between fetuses and babies.  I have made clear why fetuses are not equivalent to comatose people or those with impaired cognition.

What I should have said is that the privacy issue comes up only after the central question has been answered negatively.  An unborn baby is not a person deserving of rights, therefore you can kill them at will.

False.  Read the Roe v Wade decision, which goes into great detail on just this subject and just why privacy is a central issue in a woman's right to choose an abortion.  And stop disparaging the act as if everyone undergoes it willingly or frivolously.  It is among the worst choices that a woman has to make, especially as the pregnancy advances.  In the early stages of pregnancy, it is physically no different than undergoing an operation.  The embryo has no brain with which to have experiences.

I don't think there are many pro-lifers out there that want to give newborn babys death certificates.  We just think a person shouldn't be able to kill them for personal convenience.

What if the decision were not a mere "personal convenience", but an agonizing one?  Where is it your business?  The decision to have an abortion is not as routine as you imply.  Birth control saves most women from having to face the tough choice of abortion.  If you seriously believed that natural (as opposed to artificial) abortions involved the death of a true 'person', you would advocate a death certificate.  The fact that you do not shows that you know the difference, even if you won't admit it.  The birth and death certificates issue was one of the factors that figured into the Roe v Wade decision.  Such a requirement would force the parents to give a name to the deceased fetus, among other burdens on their privacy.

Ok, so I have a far-fetched sci-fi scenario to throw into the mix.  Suppose that I invented a machine that allowed me to travel back in time...back 4 months prior to the birth of a beautiful child that would one day go by the name of Ragnar or perhaps Copernicus and participate in a lively online discussion about abortion.  Suppose I could go back and talk to the mother of what I know to be a one-day brilliant and witty humaniod, but I also explained that it is currently nothing more than a rightless fetus.  Suppose I also explained to the mother how wonderful of a person this Ragnar or Copernicus would become: feeding the poor, freeing lost souls from the vice of ignorance and closed-mindedness, and strongly opposing all acts of kitten juggling.  Suppose I also provided the mother with an offer of one million dollars (printed from the time period so as to be of some immediate use to her, of course) if she would abort this future beacon of social and intellecual light.  I'm not sure how old Ragnar or Copernicus is, so let us assume also that this is after Roe-v-Wade (or that RvW occurred ealier than the actual 1973 decision) so as to rule out the legal/illegal element.  Would it be morally wrong for the mother to take me up on it?  Would you be in support of the legality of such an act?  Of course, I am directing this scenario to those who are not opposed to abortion.

David wrote:
Come on, be reasonable man! Killing a criminal or an enemy on the battlefield is different that killing a human being just because it is convienient.


If you can put stipulations on the morality of killing, then I see no reason why I should not have the same right. The question can only be over whether the stipulations are reasonable. I've already pointed out why embryos and fetuses should not be regarded "human beings" in the same sense that babies, children, and adults are.

Yeah, unborns are not "human beings" in the same sense that you and I are.  Neither are newborn babies or small children or old people.  Or black people or women or jews.  The differences in all these groups are irrelevant.  Your reasoning is as follows: if it is okay to kill somepeople for some reasons, then it is okay to kill any body for any reason.  Don't talk d--ned nonsense.

The only difference between you and a Nazi is that you say that to be a person one must have 'higher cognition', 'social relationships' and 'possesions' whereas the Nazi says that one must be pure Aryan.  All of these requirements are irrelevant.

I know we are talking about unborns not newborns.  I am merely pointing out that the similarities far outweigh the differences, just as the similarities between all humans far outweigh our differences.

My business in all of this is that I am a member of this society.  I don't have to roll over and take it in the rear just because it doesn't directly effect me.

Why are you talking about death certificates?  This is just a strawman.

Bdean, we cannot base current social policy on science fiction or fantasies.

Just a review of the names of several laws and policies suggest the infulence of science fiction.  Fiction may not be real, but it can communicate truth.  My fictional scenario was intended to illustrate the fact that the fetus is, at least, a "potential" person.  Notions of potential futures do and should play an enormous role in social policy and indivvdual morality.

In the fantasy you invented, the fetus would already be a "person", so the rules of the real world would not be applicable.

Ok, so take the entire time travel out for a moment and then react to the scenario in my post.  Suppose the guy didn't know the future of that "fetus."  Does the man's knowledge or lack therof of the potential futures of the "fetus" determine whether or not the "fetus" is a person?  What do you think about policies to protect a "potential" person?  Do you consider that unreasonable?

Oh, and are you a libertarian?  I have a few more questions for you, but they will only detract if you are coming from a libertarian perspective :)

Come on AH, have you been reading this thread?

I do think were are getting somewhere here and that is very exciting to me.  I so much dread conversations between two disagreeing parties when each are simply trying to outwit the other rather than 1) genuinely seeking truth and 2) trying to understand the other person's perspective.

Is it your opinion that all fertile women should have as many children as possible--by whatever means--in order to realize all potential human beings? I seriously doubt that.

No.  Rather, it is my position that all fetuses taking temorpary residence in a woman should not be denied the potential of independent life.

They face the real dilemma of becoming a parent. Potential persons are not real persons. The obligation of society is to protect a real person's rights--the potential mother. She is trying to decide whether to become a real mother. That should be her decision. Not yours and not the government's.

These series of statements are intriuging to me.  I really hope to understand your thoughts about this further.  In order to do this, I have a few questions for you.  The fetus is, at least, a potential person, but you state that this "potential person" should not have rights...that this is merely abstract morality.  But then you argue for the the rights of a "real delimma"...the "potential mother."  You identified her as a potential mother.  Isn't this decision rooted in the real (not abstract) existence of a fetus that is just as much a "potential person" as the woman is a "potential mother"?  I mean, if it wasn't realistic to assume that the fetus was growing to become an independent person, then it would not be realistic to assume that the woman was becoming a "real mother."  I don't quite get why you call the situation of the woman/mother "real" but do not seem to acknowledge the situation of the fetus as "real."  Both exists and have a potential future that will likely be significantly influenced by what the mother decides.  As I see it, taking into account the future is not abstract for the woman or the fetus.  Both are very real and, as such, a decision must be supported that always respects the future of both the woman and the fetus.