Abortion

[Kimberly]

Of course there will be hardships in raising a child, but seeing your child grow into a person and all that seems to outweigh it by a lot... I just can't really see how you can talk about a child as just a financial drain, a stressful 'thing' that's around all the time, etc. Seeing something you raised become successful, learn, all that - the joy from that should be more important to you than money and stress/loss of sleep.

 

I'm not, you said that it didn't have any psychological effects. I'm simply saying that's not true.

 

Also you're arguing in idealistic terms that can't be guaranteed. Yeah, I agree with you, that's how people should be...but let's be honest as a group of rational people. As a whole we rarely act to meet ideal conditions. I'm not saying we should stop trying to reach the ideal, but there is no reason for the government to force the ideal upon people like some babysitter.

 

Imagine the discussion 13 years later, after the child finds out from googling himself...

"Son, we would have killed you had we known you'd be like this. Hope the 4.5 million cheers you up."

 

Or perhaps they pursued legal action not because they had a disgust for human life, but to get the money to be able to actually care for such a child with severe disabilities. We can't even begin to guess their reasoning. Legal battles are dirty. If you had a child like that and you knew you didn't have the finances to give your child a better quality of life, wouldn't you twist the system to put your child first?

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't have all the information and it's a bit irresponsible to use it as emotional ammo in a debate that's already plagued by strong (and sometimes irrational) feelings.

[Duff]

I can't find where I said raising a child didn't have psychological effects. D: I don't think I said that.

 

If I did, I must have mis-typed, cause I'd never claim that. :s

[sees_all1]

Imagine the discussion 13 years later, after the child finds out from googling himself...

"Son, we would have killed you had we known you'd be like this. Hope the 4.5 million cheers you up."

 

Or perhaps they pursued legal action not because they had a disgust for human life, but to get the money to be able to actually care for such a child with severe disabilities. We can't even begin to guess their reasoning. Legal battles are dirty. If you had a child like that and you knew you didn't have the finances to give your child a better quality of life, wouldn't you twist the system to put your child first?

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't have all the information and it's a bit irresponsible to use it as emotional ammo in a debate that's already plagued by strong (and sometimes irrational) feelings.

It's a wrongful birth lawsuit. The whole premise is that had they known, they wouldn't have given birth.

[Nomrombom]

Imagine the discussion 13 years later, after the child finds out from googling himself...

"Son, we would have killed you had we known you'd be like this. Hope the 4.5 million cheers you up."

 

Or perhaps they pursued legal action not because they had a disgust for human life, but to get the money to be able to actually care for such a child with severe disabilities. We can't even begin to guess their reasoning. Legal battles are dirty. If you had a child like that and you knew you didn't have the finances to give your child a better quality of life, wouldn't you twist the system to put your child first?

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't have all the information and it's a bit irresponsible to use it as emotional ammo in a debate that's already plagued by strong (and sometimes irrational) feelings.

It's a wrongful birth lawsuit. The whole premise is that had they known, they wouldn't have given birth.

 

Yeah, so? It's not like it's personal. Their kid could have been the next Obama, the next Michael Jackson, the next John Wayne, it doesn't matter. There's no reason for the kid to be angry with them, as he was not a person when they would have had the abortion. In fact, he should be happy that they're willing to put in a lot of effort to make his life as comfortable/easy as possible.

[sees_all1]

Imagine the discussion 13 years later, after the child finds out from googling himself...

"Son, we would have killed you had we known you'd be like this. Hope the 4.5 million cheers you up."

 

Or perhaps they pursued legal action not because they had a disgust for human life, but to get the money to be able to actually care for such a child with severe disabilities. We can't even begin to guess their reasoning. Legal battles are dirty. If you had a child like that and you knew you didn't have the finances to give your child a better quality of life, wouldn't you twist the system to put your child first?

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't have all the information and it's a bit irresponsible to use it as emotional ammo in a debate that's already plagued by strong (and sometimes irrational) feelings.

It's a wrongful birth lawsuit. The whole premise is that had they known, they wouldn't have given birth.

 

Yeah, so? It's not like it's personal. Their kid could have been the next Obama, the next Michael Jackson, the next John Wayne, it doesn't matter. There's no reason for the kid to be angry with them, as he was not a person when they would have had the abortion. In fact, he should be happy that they're willing to put in a lot of effort to make his life as comfortable/easy as possible.

It is personal. They're saying, we don't want our son because he's deformed, and had we known earlier we would have killed him.

 

There's also a nasty hypothetical where this kid might be made fun of for his handicaps, and how can his parents comfort him? "We love you just the way you are" is an outright lie...

[Nomrombom]

Not so. They're saying IF they knew about it before he was a person (he was not a person during gestation; we have proven this already) they would have aborted him. They are not saying they do not love him. They are not saying they want him to die. They are not saying they don't want him.

 

It is not a lie - they love him as a conscious person right now. And I do not think you can really love a fetus - there is no person inside. It is a mass of flesh. It does not know what is going on, or that you are going to raise it. It is the equivalent of a hair follicle except that it COULD become a person at one point in the future, as said in the article.

 

And anyone who makes fun of people for being handicapped is just an idiot who is not worth wasting breath or energy on anyway.

[Kimberly]

I can't find where I said raising a child didn't have psychological effects. D: I don't think I said that.

 

I guess the woman benefits maybe not physically, but psychologically (again, maybe not in all cases).

 

You said that it had psychological benefits. And while later in the child's life, it might, just after birth it tends to be quite the opposite.

 

It's a wrongful birth lawsuit. The whole premise is that had they known, they wouldn't have given birth.

 

...And I'm saying what would you do if you didn't have the funds to raise a child with no arms and one leg. Would you lie, say that you would've aborted, if you knew that you would win the lawsuit and get millions?

 

You don't have all the information. Using it in a medical malpractice discussion, I could understand, because the information on it is listed all in the article. But no one would say, "Yeah, I lied so I could get the millions to take care of my child." That would get them sued.

 

People lie in lawsuits or pursue strange cases (and win) all the time, especially in the US. You know that.

[sees_all1]

It's a wrongful birth lawsuit. The whole premise is that had they known, they wouldn't have given birth.

 

...And I'm saying what would you do if you didn't have the funds to raise a child with no arms and one leg. Would you lie, say that you would've aborted, if you knew that you would win the lawsuit and get millions?

If they didn't mean it, that's a horrible thing to lie about.

 

If I found myself in a situation where I had a child I couldn't afford, I'd put them up for adoption and hope they'd know I loved them enough to give them a chance at a better life.

[Duff]

I can't find where I said raising a child didn't have psychological effects. D: I don't think I said that.

 

I guess the woman benefits maybe not physically, but psychologically (again, maybe not in all cases).

 

You said that it had psychological benefits. And while later in the child's life, it might, just after birth it tends to be quite the opposite.

Well psh. I wasn't saying there weren't any psychological deterrents. :\ I was talking only about benefits.

[sees_all1]

Not so. They're saying IF they knew about it before he was a person (he was not a person during gestation; we have proven this already) they would have aborted him.

Your "proof" is a poorly thought out post trying to explain why a single property of humanity defines person-hood.

The thing that's even more troubling is how your "proof" is trying to make a distinction between the words "Human" and "Person", when really they're just different parts of speech.

 

The word "person" appears in all legal documents because it is a noun, and has always been a noun. The word "human" is an adjective, and until recently hasn't been a noun. In formal English it would not be grammatically correct to say, "All humans born or naturalized" ... the proper way to say this is "All persons" or "All human beings."

 

Also saying "human person" in plain speech is redundant.

[Assume Nothing]

Please don't turn this debate into mere semantics - it misses the point entirely.

 

Can we please agree whether + when a fetus has the same rights to life as a normal person, and whether these rights should be considered superior to the mother's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The flawed argument posted previously had a good point - it's entirely dependent on the mother to survive.

 

Abortion sometimes seems like the best choice, even when it's not a good choice. I also must digress - aren't there 'humane' ways to kill a fetus, such as via ingestion of certain food/drugs?

[Kimberly]

I also must digress - aren't there 'humane' ways to kill a fetus, such as via ingestion of certain food/drugs?

 

If there were, then it would be regulated as strictly as the morning after pill.

[magekillr]

Why are you concerned about what is "humane" when the fetus is less of a person than a small mammal? Beyond that, it's less of a person than a lot of other organisms -- it can't feel, for instance. What defines when "humane" treatment is needed in the first place?

[Nomrombom]

Why are you concerned about what is "humane" when the fetus is less of a person than a small mammal? Beyond that, it's less of a person than a lot of other organisms -- it can't feel, for instance. What defines when "humane" treatment is needed in the first place?

 

:thumbup:

[magekillr]

Which brings me back to the Great George Carlin:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

[aspeeder]

The thing that's even more troubling is how your "proof" is trying to make a distinction between the words "Human" and "Person", when really they're just different parts of speech.

This is false, or at the very least debatable.

 

For a standard wikipedia definition: A person is a human being, or an entity (In other words, it doesn't have to be a human and thus the two words aren't totally synonymous) that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties (And a fetus possesses none, or at the very least less, of these than a fully self-aware and sexually developed female), among others. However, the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts (Like I said, debatable).

 

I also linked to this earlier in the thread, but it's a (Granted, biased) piece on the differences between a human, and a person, and thus shows why abortion is a moral choice for the carrier to make: http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

 

Also saying "human person" in plain speech is redundant.

Well yes in plain speech now it would be since there aren't any other entities that we know of that possesses the qualities of personhood. If alien life is discovered, or AI increases to the point of self-awareness then "human person" may become a necessary distinction from "robotic person" or "extraterrestrial person."

[sees_all1]

For a standard wikipedia definition: A person is a human being, or an entity (In other words, it doesn't have to be a human and thus the two words aren't totally synonymous) that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties (And a fetus possesses none, or at the very least less, of these than a fully self-aware and sexually developed female), among others. However, the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts (Like I said, debatable).

Right from square one the definition says "A person is a human being". An unborn child is human, and is alive (a being). The second part "or an entity" doesn't exclude human beings (unborn children) from being persons, it just includes other things.

 

Even if you were to completely ignore the first statement defining a person, the second part isn't an exhaustive list of capacities or attributes. The key words that you missed were "can include" and "among others".

 

Also calling something "debatable" is a far cry from calling it "proven," as you did in an earlier post.

[aspeeder]

For a standard wikipedia definition: A person is a human being, or an entity (In other words, it doesn't have to be a human and thus the two words aren't totally synonymous) that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties (And a fetus possesses none, or at the very least less, of these than a fully self-aware and sexually developed female), among others. However, the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts (Like I said, debatable).

Right from square one the definition says "A person is a human being". An unborn child is human, and is alive (a being). The second part "or an entity" doesn't exclude human beings (unborn children) from being persons, it just includes other things.

 

Even if you were to completely ignore the first statement defining a person, the second part isn't an exhaustive list of capacities or attributes. The key words that you missed were "can include" and "among others".

 

Also calling something "debatable" is a far cry from calling it "proven," as you did in an earlier post.

You misinterpreted the definition, it didn't say a person is a human (In any state), or an entity that fulfills x capacities. It states that both the human and entity must fulfill the requirements which can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties; a fetus cannot fulfill the vast majority of these qualities. And the reasons they wrote "can include" and "among others" was to point to the amount of diversity on the topic, but from a western point of view the attributes listed were what we generally associate with personhood. I showed that it was debatable using a standard definition from a fairly unbiased source, in my earlier post (And the one you quoted and edited) I had other evidence showing I was right/that supported my argument (I.e. proven).

[sees_all1]

A person (plural: persons or people; from Latin: persona, meaning "mask")[1] is a human being, or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context.[2] Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others.[3] However, the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts.

 

OR means fulfilling any one condition satisfies the definition.

AND means fulfilling all conditions satisfies the definition.

 

The conjunction linking the parts of the definition is "or" not "and", so both conditions don't have to be satisfied for the definition to be fulfilled.

[aspeeder]

A person (plural: persons or people; from Latin: persona, meaning "mask")[1] is a human being, or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context.[2] Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others.[3] However, the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts.

 

OR means fulfilling any one condition satisfies the definition.

AND means fulfilling all conditions satisfies the definition.

 

The conjunction linking the parts of the definition is "or" not "and", so both conditions don't have to be satisfied for the definition to be fulfilled.

The conjunction is only referring to the list in the first phrase of the sentance; the "or" has no bearing on the dependent clause in the second half of the sentence. The way you're looking at it, with the "or" separating two independent clauses it would read like this: A person is a human being. An entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context. The way I'm reading it is: A person is a human being/an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context.

[sees_all1]

I'm reading it as two different definitions.

 

A person is a human being.

A person is an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood.

 

If you look "person" up in a proper dictionary and not an encyclopedia, you'll find something similar to

1. an individual human being

2. the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing: guns hidden on his person

3. a grammatical category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided depending on whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual, thing, etc

4. a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations

5. philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul

6. archaic a character or role; guise

7. in person

a. actually present: the author will be there in person

b. without the help or intervention of others

 

usage People is the word usually used to refer to more than one individual: there were a hundred people at the reception. Persons is rarely used, except in official English: several persons were interviewed

In this sense something doesn't have to fulfill all 7 definitions to be a person, rather just 1.

[aspeeder]

I'm reading it as two different definitions.

 

A person is a human being.

A person is an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood.

That's an inaccurate reading if you're basing it on the fact that there's an or. The list needs a conjunction to be grammatically correct and the or fulfills that requirement, it serves no further meaning in the sentence.

 

If you look "person" up in a proper dictionary and not an encyclopedia, you'll find something similar to

1. an individual human being

2. the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing: guns hidden on his person

3. a grammatical category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided depending on whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual, thing, etc

4. a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations

5. philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul

6. archaic a character or role; guise

7. in person

a. actually present: the author will be there in person

b. without the help or intervention of others

 

usage People is the word usually used to refer to more than one individual: there were a hundred people at the reception. Persons is rarely used, except in official English: several persons were interviewed

In this sense something doesn't have to fulfill all 7 definitions to be a person, rather just 1.

Wikipedia has something similar to this, it's disambiguation page: Person or Persons may refer to:

 

Person, any of various established definitions of personhood; people is often used in English as the suppletive plural of person

Grammatical person, concerning the ways in which languages address people and describe their relationships to the speaker

Legal person (or juristic person), an entity that the law treats as a natural person for some purposes, such as an incorporated organization

Natural person, a legal term to differentiate human beings from juristic persons

An individual human, a member of the species Homo sapiens

The living body (see Human body) of a human being; either (a) the actual body as distinct from clothing, etc., or from the mind or soul, or (b) the body with its clothing and adornment as presented to the sight of others; bodily frame or figure. Usually with of or possessive

 

But since we're discussing what does make something/one a person in a philosophical and moral sense personhood is the more appropriate term to be debating (The wikipedia entry I referenced initially is basically defining this term). I get what you're saying, but you're using common vernacular and I'm afraid at this level of discussion it can often times be inaccurate or inappropriate.

 

per·son·hood

 

noun /ˈpərsənˌod/ 

 

The quality or condition of being an individual person

[sees_all1]

But since we're discussing what does make something/one a person in a philosophical and moral sense personhood is the more appropriate term to be debating (The wikipedia entry I referenced initially is basically defining this term). I get what you're saying, but you're using common vernacular and I'm afraid at this level of discussion it can often times be inaccurate or inappropriate.

 

I'm not debating in a "philosophical" sense because the characteristics that make something human are very real. Furthermore, seeing as in the philosophical sense there hasn't been a universal definition established there's no point trying to argue anything else, but in a scientific sense there is a very real definition that's perfectly reasonable.

 

What you're trying to do is change common language to divorce two words that have the same inherent meaning and connotation so you can legally create a subclass of human beings that aren't quite "persons," and therefore marginalize their rights while telling half truths to others to convince them that what they're doing isn't wrong.

 

A clear example of this happened in the 1960's... The definition of pregnancy was changed. In common terms, pregnancy meant (and still means) being "with child." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed the definition of the start of pregnancy from the moment of conception (when truly a unique individual is formed inside the woman), to implantation. This allowed them to avoid having to label the pill as an abortifacient, because technically it didn't terminate a pregnancy (they changed the very definition), it only just prevented implantation.

[h3art]

You draw the line at infanticide.

 

Besides, I discount the utility of any future person at about 7%. :wink:

[Assume Nothing]

Why are you concerned about what is "humane" when the fetus is less of a person than a small mammal? Beyond that, it's less of a person than a lot of other organisms -- it can't feel, for instance. What defines when "humane" treatment is needed in the first place?

 

I'm not concerned with it myself, but one of the reasoning behind the anti-abortionist arguments stem from the idea that a fetus can feel pain when it's being 'killed' or aborted. Of course, the very idea itself is subject to debate, but if we want to sway public opinion effectively (or at least, tip.it's), we mustn't present the concept to be inconsistent with the principals we have with killing any other thing 'humanely'.

 

I'm somewhat convinced that it should be a choice of a fully conscious, living human mother to whether she should be a vessel for a developing embryo/fetus. We must realise that by disallowing a woman to make that choice, it puts her rights to life (carrying a child can kill in certain medical situations), liberty (can't have free will if there's no choice now, can there?) and pursuit of happiness (if the mother is unsatisfied with carrying a child she doesn't want). The mental anguish seems to overwhelm the 'rights' of the unborn embryo, assuming there is any.

 

If pregnancy didn't necessitate carrying a child, I'd consider abortion immoral. Before that technology exists, I'd say say it's the choice of the mother.