quote:

ORIGINAL: DisenchantedLife

quote:

ORIGINAL: loveNdevotion

"Thankfully, your dream will remain a fantasy. Abortion isn't such a problem that we'll ever have to resort to such extreme measures. It's an unfortunate fact of life that women have to terminate pregnancies: but it's not the end of the world. Only anti-choice people would have us believe that. "

Actually, it is the end of someone's world.  Quite literally so.  Whether that someone was considered human at the time their world ended- or would have become human at some point in the ensuing months- the world did, indeed, end- for them.

Why does everyone ignore that?  IMO that is the greatest tradegy

quote:


I'm pro choice and even though I believe that a fetus is human I believe it does not gain FULL human standing until it has been born and is recognize by everyone including the goverment as a member of society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravennfyre



There's a part of me that goes along with Stephann's idea. If it were up to me, no one would be capable of procreating until they have graduated high school, and college, held down a job and supported themselves in their own home. Then again, I think that cars shouldn't be able to turn unless the driver uses the turn signal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Point being.. back when white people enslaved black people from Africa here in America. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravennfyre

Would I take that choice away from my 15 year old daughter? No, I wouldn't.
Would I force my 17 year old son to step up and take responsibility for his actions? You bet I would.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Here in America, though, where human rights have been a big deal.. it's my impression that their slavery was justified in denouncing their humanity, that they were considered as animals.. human-like animals in a way, but still also similar to monkeys or cattle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravennfyre

Would I take that choice away from my 15 year old daughter? No, I wouldn't.
Would I force my 17 year old son to step up and take responsibility for his actions? You bet I would.

I'm a bit confused.  Don't get me wrong, I agree with the second statement.. but it doesn't make sense in combination with the first.

So the girl always opt out of her responsibility, but the guy can't?  This seems a little odd to me.  Could you elaborate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Still, isn't there some inconsistency in allowing your daughter to opt out with respecting her decision yet forcing your son, threatening to do whatever it is you would to compell him against having a decision himself?

I get you've been in the situation, so you may sympathize with your daughter more, but it seems you're stripping your son of options you'd give your daughter.









My apologies for making it personal to you.. with "your son" and "your daughter".  I didn't see a way around it, considering that was the example provided, though I understand it can be distasteful to use your family in a conversation such as this.  For this, I'm sorry.  If you chose to respond, I'll understand if you don't want this particular point to continue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Abortion debates often come down to, "Is a fetus human?"  This leads to indecision, and the spectacle leaves me exasperated.  So let's talk about it.

Words aren't set in stone, and being "human" isn't some kind of universal truth.  Our DNA is highly similar.. but it varies.  Fortunately for our simplistic notions of life, it doesn't vary continuously.

Point being.. back when white people enslaved black people from Africa here in America.  Their argument is, "They're not human!"  And, in their narrow definition of humanity.. they were correct.  (Their definition, of course, being what we might call "white humans" today.)

But what if we lived in a world where creatures continuously varied in DNA and features?  Right now, when we say "human", it's easy enough to make a cut off.  Any human you pick will have DNA that is in such and such a manner similar to any other's.. and then, at some point, it's not any different.  To make an example, let's say DNA is hypothetically represented by this short series of characters:

asfas3325235asdfasdfafds5234ok  Is a pure-blooded Irish man.
asfas3325235asdfasdfafds5234ol   Is a pure-blooded Irish woman.
asfas3325235asdfasdfafdt5234ok  Is a pure-blooded African man.
asfas3325235asdfasdfafdt5234ol   Is a pure-blooded African woman.
asfas3325235asdfasdfafdt12  Is a pig.
asfas3325235asdfasdfa2  Is a worm.
asfas33252  Is a complex single-celled organism.
asfa1  Is a simple single-celled organism.
a1  Is a virus.

It's pretty easy, if you examine a asfas3325235asdfasdfafdt51235ok, to call it human.  It's a rather slight deviation.. maybe has a third arm or something, but you can see it as being human, right?  Since DNA actually has far more components than the strings of characters I provided, we can also consider something with even smaller variations are human.  Now what about a asfas3325235asdfasdfafasddt5234ok?  Or a asfas3325235asdfasdf234234afaaaasddt5234ok?  Or a asfas3325235asdfasdfafasddt5234okasdf12as?  At what point does it vary enough that you no longer consider it human?  At what point is a creature different enough to not be human?  When it has four arms, but is otherwise normal?  How differently must it think, act, reason?  As, surely, we all have variation, but to what extent is it no longer human?


It strikes me that arbitrarily classifying as "human" vs. "not human" is not a valid, congruent system of morality.  Rather, it's prone to interpretation and seems to be flawed in its very concept.

So, if we can't just call something human or not, then how do we approach it?  Well, why does being human even matter in the first place?  This answer may vary among people, and others are free to address it, but I feel it's largely because each of us is human and it's necessary for our mutual survival and our empathy to accept others in this category.. we see ourselves in others similar to us.  (Then, I must acknowledge that many people just learn humans have value without understanding the reasoning why.  However, to consider the follower's "I was told so" reasoning does little for earnest contemplation.)

This also suggests a more continuous, congruent view of things more similar to one's self being more "human".  This also goes hand-in-hand with our natural view, as we see those more like as.. those we can empathize with.. as more human.


My philosophical bit taking a break to be applied.. we can see this as valid in the abortion debate.

Is a fetus human?  Well, it's not immediately human.. because, well, it's not extremely like me.  I can still empathize with it, though, to some degree, knowing I was once one and that it may someday be like me, able to feel love, pain, etc.  It's simple minded now, but so are newborns who know nothing.. and I still see them as human.

But it's also different.  It's not fully developed (particularly true if it's an early fetus as opposed to a late one), it's not able to think like I do, it's world still consists of living inside of its mother.

So does it deserve values I associate with those who are colloquially considered to be human?

There's no generally accepted pre-existing answer, so we have to derive one.  The semi-human aspect of it suggests that it has human rights to some lesser degree.  Now, does this mean it has almost all of an adult human's rights, or does it have very basic, pretty ignorable rights, or somewhere in between?

Personally, I haven't answered this question yet to my own satisfaction.  My working guess is along the lines of, "It has the right to life, but not to the same extent as an adult human."


What do others think?

Please, think first.
 
 
PS-  I've been using the example of DNA and differences caused by different types of DNA as one sort of difference things can have.  It is not, however, the only difference or consideration by any means.  My point was to show that picking something of some arbitrary difference strikes me as rather silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Still, isn't there some inconsistency in allowing your daughter to opt out with respecting her decision yet forcing your son, threatening to do whatever it is you would to compell him against having a decision himself?

I get you've been in the situation, so you may sympathize with your daughter more, but it seems you're stripping your son of options you'd give your daughter.

My apologies for making it personal to you.. with "your son" and "your daughter".  I didn't see a way around it, considering that was the example provided, though I understand it can be distasteful to use your family in a conversation such as this.  For this, I'm sorry.  If you chose to respond, I'll understand if you don't want this particular point to continue.