Pro-Choicers Warn Against 3d Ultrasound

In an interesting post entitled 3D foetal scans 'dangerously misleading', The British newspaper The Daily Mail relates that a group of scientists wants to warn us that ultrasounds of 12 week fetuses "sucking their thumbs and walking in the womb are dangerously misleading."   How, you say?  Well, it makes them look like actual babies. 

The fact is, now that we can visualize them, we can no longer believe the disingenuous, murder-justifying rhetoric of the left calling such babies a "clump of cells."  And the lefties know this.

The implication for abortion is that we need to consider MOVING BACK the date for legal abortions, as I have consistently said.

The 3D images of unborn babies apparently behaving in a similar way to newborns raised questions over whether the upper limit for abortions should be reduced form 24 weeks.

Of course, they make the argument that the baby's brain isn't that "functional" (if you've ever had a newborn, they're not all that functional either - they cant focus or communicate or hold their bowels!).  Note the "expert" description below.

Dr Huseyin Mehmet, a reader in developmental neurobiology at Imperial College London, said that a foetal brain at 23 and 24 weeks was "extremely immature" and described it as being like an orange that has been sliced in half.

Pro-lifers ably responded

Julia Millington, of the Pro-Life Alliance, said it was irrelevant whether someone looking at the images fully understood the science behind it or not.

She said people responded to the humanity of the images rather than the science behind them. "It is accepted generally that although a foetus appears to be smiling, it is not doing so in the way we smile," she said.

"When the ultrasound images were first made public we were told it could just be a reflex response. But that doesn't change the reality that we can see how well developed an unborn baby is."

[]

She said: "I do not think they will diminish the impact of the images because the thing that people respond to is what they see as the humanity of the unborn child.

HT:  Prosthesis

Comments

[Cineaste]

The fact is, now that we can visualize them, we can no longer believe the disingenuous, murder-justifying rhetoric of the left calling such babies a "clump of cells." And the lefties know this.

Lefties also know this is an appeal to emotion. You forgot to include the pictures of aborted babies as an extra touch. This is a post designed to bolster the convictions of the gullible; those "Pro-Lifers" who respond better to emotion and not reason. For example, there is no substance in this post; you use the picture to manipulate people's emotions, little else...

It was irrelevant whether someone looking at the images fully understood the science behind it or not... people responded to the humanity of the images rather than the science behind them.

In other words, a person's complete and utter ignorance of a subject is irrelevant to their ability to hold convictions on that subject. This is the logic of a fool/religious zealot and Julia Millington sounds like both.

[Lawanda]

You know what?

It doesnt matter whether a baby is a clump of cells, or if it can suck it's thumb in the womb... (which my second dd Cassie did at 12 weeks along...)

If someone who is pregnant does not want the baby, they will find a way out. And their way out will include them rationalizing their baby's tangibility/importance away so they will not have to think of themselves as ending their baby's life.

If someone is pregnant and wants the baby, then they do not care if a scientist defines it as a clump of cells. To them it is their baby and they will do whatever it takes to keep its life from ending.

And in either case (pregnant woman does not want baby or pregnant woman does want baby) it doesn't matter whether they are on welfare or rich, whether they can or cannot take care of a baby, or whether they know the baby might not be healthy or not.

They will do what they FEEL like doing.

And this is logic? ....hmmm.

I know a person who died while she was 8 months pregnant. They saved the baby. When the mother is taken, who's choice is it then? That poor daddy had to raise that baby alone. But what if he had said - no, don't save the baby, sorry, I mean fetus?

Really, what does science have to do with the choice to become a mother or not? If it was a scientific issue, then it would be a non-issue. The reason we have this argument in our world is because people view their baby's oncoming life as an end to their own. So they act accordingly. But then other people see that is not the case (a baby doesnt have to mean the end of the pregnant woman's life) and they act accordingly.

Personally, I think abortion should be illegal. But I don't see it happening. Our culture is too far gone down the road of "all about ME."

[Cineaste]

Really, what does science have to do with the choice to become a mother or not?

Science has absolutely nothing to do with the choice to become a mother. Ironically, it's pro-lifer's who want to interfere with the choice to become a mother. If they get ther way, motherhood will be mandatory.

The motherhood choice itself has nothing to do with science, however. Science has a lot to do, along with philosophy and ethics, in determining what a person is. Everything hinges on this question, "What is a person?" Why is this question important? Because, non persons have no rights. Hard line pro-lifers argue that a person starts at the moment of conception. Pro-choicers argue it's some time after conception and before birth. If you take the position that personhood starts at conception, like Aaron, I'll be happy to show you many examples of how this stance is weak and hypocritical. If you take the stance that it's sometime after conception and before birth like Seeker and I (though we disagree about when exactly), then science, philosophy and ethics can help determine personhood.

For example...

Person

A person is defined by philosophers as a being who is in possession of a range of psychological capacities that are regarded as both necessary and sufficient to fulfill the requirements of personhood. These are, in general, that it is capable of reasoning, that it is self-conscious, and that it has an identity that persists through time. The English philosopher John Locke defined a person as "a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it" (Essay on Humane Understanding, Book 2, Chapter 27, Section 9).

The most obvious examples of persons are human beings. Some philosophers regard non-human animals as persons, and argue that some human beings — for example, those with certain types of brain damage — are not. Beings from other planets could also be regarded as persons.

According to Boethius:

Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights.

John Locke emphasized the idea of a living being that is conscious of itself as persisting over time (and hence able to have conscious preferences about its own future).

In recent years a kind of consensus among secular scholars has emerged, which might be referred to as "personhood theory".[citation needed] This is strongly influenced by Locke's approach. The criteria a person must have in personhood theory are one or more of the following:

1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.

Neo-Kantian philosophers over the last two decades have emphasized that conscious awareness requires both:

1. The sensorial capacity to access an environment (and one's own body) in a way that offers the basic qualitative content for subjective experience.
2. The intellectual capacity to conceptually interpret sensorial content as representing some thing to oneself.

Both of these capacities are required for a subject of experience, action, thought, or self-reflection to exist, at least in the physically embodied, world-accessing manner of humans (and presumably other intelligent animals). As Kant wrote:

Without sensibility no object would be given to us, and without understanding none would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. (Critique of Pure Reason, A 51 = B 75).

For those who consider an embodied capacity for subjectivity as necessary for personhood, these abstract constraints are quite relevant to the personhood theory debate. Advocates of alternative positions, such as a biological species or potentiality criterion, would instead need to provide arguments against embodied subjectivity as a basis for personhood. For example, one might argue that property claims are made by immaterial minds on immature material bodies, though any claim as to the nature of such minds would be necessarily speculative and would typically involve an argument for Cartesian substance dualism (see "mind-body problem").

When you say, "Our culture is too far gone down the road of "all about ME." You have really missed the point and you are just running on sentiment and not reason. Why should I or my girlfriend think of a blastocyte as a person? She has used the morning after pill. Do you think she is a murderess now and I her accomplice? I can give you many reasons we shouldn't consider blastocytes people, if you want.

[seeker]

Lefties also know this is an appeal to emotion. You forgot to include the pictures of aborted babies as an extra touch. This is a post designed to bolster the convictions of the gullible

Yes, just like pictures of the Holocaust was an appeal to emotions rather than rationality. Sometimes, when the rational mind has blocked out the truth, it needs a shock to the emotions to wake a person up from their deception. Pro-lifers are right when they call abortion a holocaust.

If someone who is pregnant does not want the baby, they will find a way out.
Yes, and if someone doesn't want an infant, they will find a way out. But that doesn't mean we should make it legal to kill or abandon children. Bogus argument.

I know a person who died while she was 8 months pregnant.
Yes, well we can always make exceptions for these extreme cases. But making the rule by the exception is illogical and morally bankrupt.

Pro-choicers argue it's some time after conception and before birth.
Wrong. They argue that it's the mother's decision when life starts during this period, or at best, they argue that it begins at birth. If they had a cogent argument for an earlier marker for personhood, why don't they try to make later abortions = murder? Because they lack that conviction.

Ironically, it's pro-lifer's who want to interfere with the choice to become a mother.
Nice polemic pot shot, but not really true. While some pro lifers are against contraception, the crux of the movmeent is to save the life of the child, whose rights are being violated, and whose life is being taken.

A person is defined by philosophers...
By that definition, we could justify killing the handicapped, and most children younger than 12 months.

As Aaron has also stated, we may need to consider more than personhood, but unique humanity of the fetus.

[Lawanda]

"non persons have no rights"

I'm sorry, but even dogs and racoons have rights in our culture.

"Ironically, it's pro-lifer's who want to interfere with the choice to become a mother. If they get ther way, motherhood will be mandatory."

No, if pro-life gets their way, abortion will be illegal. Just like drinking under the age of 21 (or whatever it is now) is illegal. Just like having sex with a 15 year old is illegal.

And guess what? People still choose to drink before they turn 21. People still choose to have sex when they are 15, or with a 15 year old.

People will still choose to have abortions. I know that doctors did "D&C's" before abortion bacame legal, and I am sure they will if it becomes illegal again.

People will still choose not to be mothers. But hopefully they will choose not to be a mother in a more responsible way.

And as far as whether the baby is a person or not, like I said, if you tried to do an abortion on a mother who wanted her baby, what would she say? "Don't kill my baby"

And if someone who wants a baby has a miscarriage, they GRIEVE. Trust me on this. Do not try to convince them they have no scientific evedince that their baby is a "person".

It is not a scientific issue.

[Aaron]

My stance for personhood beginning at conception is the most logical stance. As I have said if you move it from that point, where do you place it?

You have yet to say - this is where personhood starts. Most likely because you don't want to be nailed down to that because then I can do like you do and point out where i see the logical errors in your thinking. You like to hold to this mushy idea of "this is what philosophys says..." without ever answering the question.

If it begins somewhere between conception and birth, where is that? Let's make all abortions after that point illegal. Or is it birth? But what makes a premie born at 6 months more of a person that a baby born late and past 9 month?

How does a mother's choice (ie wanting the baby or not) determine the personhood of the child? Does this not allow me to make the case that I can determine that terrorists in Gitmo are not persons, therefore they shouldn't be treated like one? My choice or my feelings on the matter do not determine the personhood of someone esle. Neither do yours or any philosopher.

Using your logic and your critera, please tell me how a premie is a person, or any infant, the little boy with Down's, an old lady with alzhemiers, even a sleeping individual or one who is unconscious?

I will continue to argue for the personhood of the unborn, but that alone is not the only case against abortion. As Lawanda points out animals have rights in our society. My favorite example is that I cannot go out and grab some eagle eggs to cook for breakfast. They are an endangered species, so it makes it illegal to kill their unborn young. Why? Because they are an eagle too, just an unborn one.

As seeker said, we have the unique humanity of the baby. They are different from their mother in every possible way. They are not part of her body, they are simply inside her body.

If somebody does something to bring you into their home, do they then have the right to kill you for being there? I would argue not and I would argue that no one has the right to kill an unborn baby especially after you did something to cause the baby to be there. [I await the liberal canard of rape and incest. Just for arguement's sake, let's allow those and stop the 99% of abortions that are merely birth control.]

[Cineaste]

Yes, just like pictures of the Holocaust was an appeal to emotions rather than rationality.

Here come the preposterous abortion/Holocaust comparisons. I've been to Dachau in Germany. It's an emotional memorial to those who died. Seeker, your comparison is no memorial, but it is in bad taste.

Pro-lifers are right when they call abortion a holocaust.

The pro-lifers who think blastocysts are victims of a holocaust are hypocrites and fools.

They argue that it's the mother's decision when life starts during this period.

This is a lot like your "Natural Selection is random" argument. It's from ignorance and false. I won't even bother to tell you why your statement is false, it should be obvious.

Ironically, it's pro-lifer's who want to interfere with the choice to become a mother. ...Nice polemic pot shot, but not really true.

Yes, true and you know it; especially since it involves the "murder" of innocent blastocysts.

By that definition, we could justify killing the handicapped, and most children younger than 12 months.

Explain how and don't just assert, as is your bent.

[Cineaste]

I'm sorry, but even dogs and racoons have rights in our culture.

Non persons have no rights as persons. Is that clearer?

And as far as whether the baby is a person or not...

A baby is a person. What's the definition of "baby." A blastocyst is not a baby in scientific, philisophical, or ethical terms.

And if someone who wants a baby has a miscarriage, they GRIEVE.

Women miscarry all the time when the blastocyst detaches from the uterine wall, "Many miscarriages happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant. -from wikipedia" Women don't grieve for this. They don't even realize it happened.

It is not a scientific issue.

It's scientific, philisophical and ethical.

[Cineaste]

My stance for personhood beginning at conception is the most logical stance.

I disagree.

Aaron, your arguments today are more cogent than Seeker's and Lawanda's. It's tough for me to respond to the posts of 3 people so I'll try to focus on yours.

I don't believe in "souls" but I think you do. Does the soul enter at the moment of conception?

[Lawanda]

"Women miscarry all the time when the blastocyst detaches from the uterine wall, "Many miscarriages happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant. -from wikipedia" Women don't grieve for this. They don't even realize it happened."

So how can a woman get an abortion if she doesnt know she is pregnant? (meaning, how many abortions really happen that early?)

I see that you are buried in the rhetoric, as most people are. I get that way sometimes too.

One thing that realllllly bothers me about "pro-choice"...

If it is a "woman's choice", fine. But you know what? Women aren't the only ones who can get pregnant. Children (under the age of 18) can too. And obviously most of them do NOT want to be pregnant. That is why they get abortions.

But rather than telling young women it is ok if you get pregnant, because you have easy access to abortions (paid for by other members of society through taxes, btw, many of whom think it SHOULD be illegal)

I would rather teach young women that they should abstain from sexual intercourse. A very sure-fire way NOT TO GET PREGNANT.

And last I checked sex wasn't the "right" of every citizen.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Aaron,

You do acknowledge that conventional birth control has been known to fail, right? Are you seriously suggesting that people who have taken every step to avoid birth - short of depriving themselves sexual gratification, which we know from Catholic priests is a BAD idea - should then be forced to have the child? And you never responded to that woman's post that I sent you. I'd be interested to hear your position on that.

[Lawanda]

I didnt get to have sex til I was 19. Man, I was so deprived.

You know what, this is sad.

People who have taken every step to avoid birth who are still having sex should be mature enough to know that if you have sex, you could possibly get pregnant.

People who take meds and get the side effects take that risk, because they want to feel better. People who want to have sex take that risk because they want to enjoy sex.

It really doesnt take science to figure out where babies come from.

[Lawanda]

And, I am sorry. I should prolly not even be discussing this. It frustrates me so much! :-p

I apologise for my frustrations coming out in my posts.

[seeker]

The pro-lifers who think blastocysts are victims of a holocaust are hypocrites and fools.
Your emphasis on blastocysts is a misdirection, and you are missing the point. I in no way called blastocysts the victims - but if you look at even 12 week fetuses, you must realize that they are NO LONGER just balls of cells, and it is not in bad taste to suggest that killing these unborn CHILDREN is a holocaust - in fact, your suggestion that such children are not persons is a horrendous self-deception, and would be offensive if it were not so terribly delusional and evil.

These pictures are not merely emotional appeals, but they are factual appeals to reason - these are not unformed balls of cells!!

The blastocyst discussion is a separate one. I, for one, don't care if you kill blastocysts all day. But very soon after, you have a differentiated human being with a heartbeat and brainwaves.

By that definition, we could justify killing the handicapped, and most children younger than 12 months.
Sure, to justify this all i need to do is copy from your original quote:

Some philosophers regard non-human animals as persons, and argue that some human beings — for example, those with certain types of brain damage — are not.

If, according to the philosopher you quoted, a being is not "capable of reasoning" then they are not a person, well, that might even exclude you, not to mention children and the mentally handicapped.

My stance for personhood beginning at conception is the most logical stance.

I too, disagree. It is one of the most simple stances, but you'll have to answer other questions which challenge this assumption. You say that it is the combination of unique genome and potential to become a human being that makes it a person?

I have stem cells in my body which, given the right conditions, could become a new being. Are they persons?

I argue that your stance, while clear and simple, is too subjective for legislation. A better idea is to pick the earliest OBVIOUS signs of life, similar to those we use at end of life. Hearbeat, and brainwaves (6-8 weeks). I think we should set the latest marker at 6 weeks, and investigate wheter or not to move it back to 4 weeks. Admittedly, we can't use the EXACT same markers as at the end of life, because the beginning of life has some unique features, chief of which is future potential, rather than lost potential.

While from a Christians perspective you may be correct, legislatively, I don't think that approach is viable.

Additionally, I think discussions of the soul are not applicable to public policy, and I can save us all a lot of time by saying that NO ONE KNOWS. Christian theology is thin on this subject, and largely conjectural, IMO.

Are you seriously suggesting that people who have taken every step to avoid birth - short of depriving themselves sexual gratification,

Of course we are. Because, while you think "depriving one's self of sexual graitification" is inhuman and impossible, Christians know this as a virtue named chastity. You might as well argue that it is impossible not to lie, cheat, and steal, and so excuse those things. People who get pregnant do NOT have the right to kill the child. They have the responsibilty to take ownership and responsibility for their actions, rather than killing someone to get out of their responsibilities. It's that simple.

[Sam Wilkinson]

What confuses me about you Seeker, and now Lawanda, is why you look at a baby and say, "Sweet! A punishment for immoral behavior!" I look at babies and say, "Cool! New life, new possibilities, hopefully gay and a future irritant of Seeker!" How you can look at life and celebrate the way it can punish people is just beyond me.

[Lawanda]

Who said a baby is a punishment for immoral behavior?

A baby is one possible consequence of having sex. Whether you look at it as punishment or a blessing, well that is the problem isnt it?

But I, personally, think babies are the sweetest things on earth. Even before they are born.

Plus, really, and even if you don't believe in an eternal punishment; surely you do understand that everything you do, every move you make - has a possible consequence here on earth. Some consequences are viewed as good, some bad.

We are responsible for our own bodies, keeping them safe and well. When a woman gets pregnant, she is then responsible for another body.

What do you say to a person who murders their born child and says "I should have had an abortion" Their feeling of punishment is obviously still there. Their reaction just wasnt swift enough for you, I guess.

THAT is what puzzles me. And I guess this is where Cineaste's whole "definition of life" comes in.

Panic and punishment, two feelings I had even with WANTED pregnancies. Hmmm.

And there I go discussing it again. ;)

[Sam Wilkinson]

Well, both you and Seeker, and the entire anti-choice industry, makes it quite clear that babies are a great punishment for people having sex. Why is it that people don't want children learning about birth control? Because then they're more likely to get pregnant accidentally, which means everybody's more likely to learn about how awful it can be to try to raise a child when you're very young, which is more likely to convince people to stay away from having sex.

Which I find to be stupid. Children are wonderous creatures. They shouldn't be viewed as a way of punishing allegedly "irresponsible" sex havers.

[Aaron]

Who said life (ie babies) punishes people, Sam? You are the only saying that no abortions means people are "forced to have the child." [emphasis mine]

I think they should rejoice at having a new life. Will it bring up difficulties? Yes, I can say that with confidence. But I also know it is worth it.

As to the post you sent me, I feel sorry for the lady, but I feel like Lawanda. You can take all the precautions you would like but sometimes you get pregnant anyway. Then the parents should agree with you: "Cool! New life, new possibilities."

Surprisingly sex = baby sometimes. If you or your signifcant other get pregnant, then it is time to step up, stop thinking about yourself and plan to take care of this baby. If it is not possible, let the child be adopted by the countless couples on waiting lists.

Seeker, I didn't say that this could be legislation. I think it would be easier to get something passed going off of your position, but that doesn't mean that the week old unborn baby is not a person. We should take what we can get in this debate. I would certainly take your stance as law, but I would continue to work for the recognition of the person at conception.

I don't know of any stem cells that can create new people. You will have to fill me in on that. I was aware that stem cells could grow to produce organs, but I was not aware they could produce entire humans.

Cineaste, as to souls - honestly I wouldn't know. My guess would be that, yes at the moment of conception a distinct living soul is created. I'm not sure when the other point would be, but from someone who believes in souls it must be up to God.

Although the issue of souls raises another interesting point in the pro-life and exsistence of God debate that I may post on in the future. I have some ideas bouncing around now.

[Lawanda]

I'm sorry. I don't fit your mold. For one, I already explained that the "punishment" is only in the eyes of the beholder so to speak.

Secondly, I absolutely believe in teaching children about bc, teenagers not small children, as I am sure you mean. I do however want MY children to learn about it FROM ME.

And if my children are determined to have sex as CHILDREN, or with lots of people, then they must face the consequences. Just like adults must. STD's are no sweet lil thing, and are to such a point that people in general are panicking about them. (AIDs scare if you recall...but people are still getting those nasty things, even with wide availability of bc/protection)

Now, what I do not understand is this: Do you WANT people to get abortions.

Maybe I am being utopic, but I would prefer women not have to get abortions.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Aaron,

The post of the woman that I sent showed that she tried to get available birth control and was refused by people who, shall we say, represent your side of the fence. She wasn't even trying to get an abortion, and she's already had four children, which is more than I can say for either of us. She's clearly far more committed to being pro-life than either of us are. But still, she was refused by people that believe that people should be punished for having sex.

Which is what you, and Lawanda, believe. We live in a worth with "technology," and that "technology," can allow for things like avoided pregnancies. Since you clearly believe that there is a baby in your wife's uterus the minute you withdraw from her vagina, you're saying that you should get to tell everyone to believe the same thing. I think there are some of us - again, call us crazy small-government liberals - who think that these medical issues should be between a woman and her doctor.

[Cineaste]

A better idea is to pick the earliest OBVIOUS signs of life, similar to those we use at end of life. Hearbeat, and brainwaves (6-8 weeks). I think we should set the latest marker at 6 weeks, and investigate wheter or not to move it back to 4 weeks. -Seeker

The pro-choice argument continues that a potential person is not an actual person. In other words, if A has the potential to become B, then it follows that A is not B. An acorn is not an oak tree. You cannot climb the limbs of an acorn, build a tree-house in an acorn, or rest in the shade of an acorn. And you certainly are not chopping down a mighty oak tree by removing an acorn from the ground.

Pro-life advocates attack this argument in three ways. The first is to publicize how quickly the embryo reaches its potential of a recognizably human form. Photographs of 8 to 12-week fetuses are crucial to their demonstrations. They emphasize -- with great exaggeration -- that the central nervous system begins working at 20 days, the heart at 24 days, and brainwaves at 43 days. What they don't tell you is that these are simply the first cells to maneuver themselves into place, and it will take months to construct these organs. Normally it takes until the 5th month of pregnancy before all the organs (except the brain and central nervous system) are completed, and by this time 99% of all abortions have already been performed. The brain and central nervous system are the fetus' most complex and longest running construction job, and will not be completed until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy. Interestingly, it is not until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy that construction is complete enough for a fetus to survive premature birth. Although pro-life literature leaves the impression that the 8-week old fetus is marvelously complete, the fact is that it would die immediately upon premature birth, precisely due to its lack of completeness.

Pro-life advocates also exaggerate the point at which a fetus becomes conscious, sentient and aware of pain. Films showing fetuses reacting to abortion instruments are important to this pro-life argument. Pro-choice advocates have countered, however, that the reactions are automatic neurological reflexes, and that fetuses cannot feel pain because their brain construction is incomplete. Eventually, two pro-life scientists, K.J. Anand and P.R. Hickey, undertook extensive research to prove once and for all that aborted fetuses feel pain. But their results pointed to the opposite conclusion: that it was unlikely that fetuses could feel pain until the beginning of the 7th month, when the lobes of their growing brains had drawn together and established synaptic contact. (1) From all the scientific evidence gathered so far, the pro-life effort to turn the 8-week old fetus into a functional person is a failure.

From http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

It is not in bad taste to suggest that killing these unborn CHILDREN is a holocaust - in fact, your suggestion that such children are not persons is a horrendous self-deception, and would be offensive if it were not so terribly delusional and evil.

Your comparison of 8-12 week old aborted fetuses to the true Holocaust is tasteless. You do this only for effect like a cheap showman.

If, according to the philosopher you quoted, a being is not "capable of reasoning" then they are not a person, well, that might even exclude you, not to mention children and the mentally handicapped.

How does it exclude me? Using Aaron's question here in place of your insults Seeker... "how a premie is a person, or any infant, the little boy with Down's, an old lady with alzhemiers, even a sleeping individual or one who is unconscious?"

Read the points carefully or try clicking on the link and read the rest of the entry for once. All these are considered persons except for vegatative states like Teri Shaivo. I would argue that, in the end, she was no longer the person she was, she was a vegetable. Please kill me if I am ever in that state and let me die with some dignity.

If, according to the philosopher you quoted...

He is not just some philospher, if you read The Declaration of Independence, you will find Locke's ideas there. Think about liberty, consent of the governed, natural rights, etc, when you think of Locke.

John Locke (August 29, 1632 – October 28, 1704) was an influential English philosopher. In epistemology, Locke has often been classified as a British Empiricist, along with David Hume and George Berkeley. He is equally important as a social contract theorist, as he developed an alternative to the Hobbesian state of nature and argued a government could only be legitimate if it received the consent of the governed through a social contract and protected the natural rights of life, liberty, and estate. If such consent was not given, argued Locke, citizens had a right of rebellion. Locke is one of the few major philosophers who became a minister of government.

Locke's ideas had an enormous influence on the development of political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings, along with those of the writings of many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, influenced the American revolutionaries as reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.

You say that it is the combination of unique genome and potential to become a human being that makes it a person?

No. Think Kant, Locke and Boethius.

I think you refer to Aaron for the rest of your post.

[Lawanda]

Ok, one last time... Did I say people should be punished for having sex? Did I say that?

Please where did I say that?

[Cineaste]

THAT is what puzzles me. And I guess this is where Cineaste's whole "definition of life" comes in.

You misunderstand again. I don't question if it's alive.

[Lawanda]

Sorry, "definition of humanity" then. I still think it is how the woman views it, not scientists.

[Cineaste]

Sorry, "definition of humanity" then. I still think it is how the woman views it, not scientists.

Gah! Lawanda, I don't question it's humanity either. My question is, is it a person? Should blastocysts, 2 week old embyo's, etc... have the rights of a fully functioning person? I say NO and for now, thank God, the law agrees with me. It is "pro-life" people that would change the laws and interfere with a mother's decision to be a mother by making motherhood mandatory. In some of the really rabid pro-life views, even if it means the death of the mother.

[Lawanda]

Ok, so yes, I am mouthy. Sorry :-p

I just want to say that discussions like this...they do not change society. I do know now however, where Cineaste, Sam, Aaron, and Seeker stand on the politics of abortion.

And it opens my eyes that I need to do more to help other women understand the RESPONSIBILITY they have to keep their bodies well and safe.

When I got pregnant (on the shot btw) for my fourth baby, I was indeed feeling punished and I did panic. However, as I was raised to view babies as BLESSINGS, I had NO thought of abortion. Even though we were in no financial position to have another baby, and our marriage wasnt all it could have been either.

I knew I could count on help and encouragement, and so I did not, although I could very well have, abort the baby.

Anyway. Thank you for allowing me this discussion. I have never really discussed it with men before. Really, that surprises me. Isnt that strange. Anyhow...

Sam, I should be punished with another baby. I have been having sex regularly since I had my last one. Oh, but that's right, I got that responsibility thing going on, and I got an IUD. If I get pregnant on this, I am going to give up! I am then going to assume that I was meant to have twelve or so children. LOL

**Cineaste, they should at least have the rights of a "child to be", In My Opinion. I have already said that I do not think motherhood should be mandatory.

I do wonder though, what do you think of the mother who keeps her pregnancy, and then drinks (alcohol or uses drugs even) til the baby is into a stupor and awful sickness, so that when it is born it is so sick it nearly dies, or deformed?

(I don't think I am a rabid anything, tyvm ;) )

[Aaron]

I'm well aware of John Locke and his thoughts, but that dosn't make the philosophy of personhood right.

The criteria a person must have in personhood theory are one or more of the following:

1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.

This was the list you gave for being a person. Mine and I think seeker's point is that there are many people whom we consider persons who may not fit with some or all of those criteria. Particularly someone is is unconscious or asleep.

You can argue that they used to be a person and they will be a person, therefore they are a person at this moment when they no longer meet the qualifications. But then you are allowing time to be used to justify personhood, so why not allow for unborn babies? They meet as many if not more than you will when you fall asleep tonight.

Are unborn babies fully developed? Not until the third trimester. But just because they couldn't live without the help of the mother's womb does not negate their personhood. A newborn cannot live without the help of someone outside of himself. They depend completely on others. As do the senile elderly. This is why, though I find him appalling, Peter Singer is much more consistent in his stated beliefs than most pro-choice people.

Cineaste, I also don't know of any pro-life person who would not allow for an abortion to save the life of the mother. Though many mothers, including my wife, would rather die than kill their unborn baby.

What happens in this question is that liberals always want a "health of the mother" clause in every abortion bill, which essentially makes the bill useless. People have made "health" mean anything from emotional health, financial health, etc. Bascially any reason at all fits under health of the mother.

But if you want to throw around extremes, why can we not outlaw partial-birth abortions? Why are so many against getting rid of that brutal practice?

[Cineaste]

Mine and I think seeker's point is that there are many people whom we consider persons who may not fit with some or all of those criteria. Particularly someone is is unconscious or asleep.

Does a person who is asleep or unconscious person have the ability for consciousness? Yes. Does a blastocyst have the ability for consciousness? No, only the poetential. There is a a big difference between potential and ability. There are many philosopical essays around the web, which I can use as references, that conclusively show the argument from potential is untenable.

But if you want to throw around extremes, why can we not outlaw partial-birth abortions? Why are so many against getting rid of that brutal practice?

I am not very familiar with this term. Are they common? I'll answer you in a future post once I do a bit of studying on the topic.

(I don't think I am a rabid anything, tyvm ;)

No, I don't think you are rabid either Lawanda. But there are people on both sides of the issue who are and it's to them which I refer to. I think you are a breath of fresh air on this site because we need a woman's perspective, even if she is on the "wrong" side of the fence, so to speak :)

[seeker]

is why you look at a baby and say, "Sweet! A punishment for immoral behavior!" I look at babies and say, "Cool! New life, new possibilities, hopefully gay and a future irritant of Seeker!" How you can look at life and celebrate the way it can punish people is just beyond me.
Actually, pro-choicers are the one's who view it as punishment - 'why "force" a woman to have a baby' - that's the punishment view.

The pro-life view is one of *responsibility*, not punishment - you have to own the results of your choices, and you can't kill to avoid the consequences of your actions.

the entire anti-choice industry, makes it quite clear that babies are a great punishment for people having sex. Why is it that people don't want children learning about birth control?

First, there is no real "industry" making money off of pro-life stances. There is, however, a multi-million dollar industry around abortion mills.

Second, your punishment view is the pro-choice view of children. The pro-life view is one of ethics and responsibility for one's actions.

Third, and increasingly, the conservative movement (including president Bush) are NOT against teaching contraception, but rather, are against teaching it in a manner that promotes or winks at promiscuity, and against teaching it in isolation, rather than in balance with the superior method of character development, i.e. chastity or abstinence. The ABC method includes both. Saying conservatives are across the board against contraception is a tactic, but it is untrue. It is contextual.

and by this time 99% of all abortions have already been performed.
If ever a stat was pulled out of someone's rear-end, this is one.

The brain and central nervous system are the fetus' most complex and longest running construction job, and will not be completed until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy.
"Completed"? You could argue that it's not completed until 12 months old. I question his idea of "completed."

it is not until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy that construction is complete enough for a fetus to survive premature birth.
NOT. Fetuses have survived from as early as 5.5 months, and you can read plenty of stories about premies surviving from 23 weeks. Not only that, the rediculous "age of viability" will continue to move back as technology improves. If you want to tie abortion limits to that train, go ahead. One day we will be able to carry a baby to term from a zygote with an artificial womb.

Check out this excellent development site to see 12 week old fetuses, among other things.

[seeker]

and I got an IUD
You should have got your man fixed instead. I go for the appt soon...

[Lawanda]

Unfortunately this whole choice thing extends to men. He won't do it, and I can't make him! ;)

[seeker]

I am not very familiar with this term [partial birth abortion]. Are they common?

You're not kidding? Holy smokes. You need to stop listening to just Planned Parenthood for your news ;)

PBA

[Aaron]

I'm not sure how common partial birth abortions are, but I can tell what they are:
They are late term abortions where the baby is pulled feet first from the womb until the base of the skull is sticking out, with only the top of the head and face left in. At this point the doctor takes forceps, jabs them into the back of the baby's skull and opens up a large hole. Then a suction device is used to remove the brain. So goes a partial birth abortion. Now excuse me while I throw up.