So brain development is your criteria for personhood as well, and you’ve arbitrarily pegged it at rudimentary lower brain activity. Why is your non sentient embryonic milestone more fitting than that of a later sentient fetal stage?
Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Has nothing to do with the question: is it wrong to remove their feeding tube?
You can call it what ever you want: the fetus is not a independent human being, it can only survived by growing in and off its mother. If the term parasite offends you call it something else, a "sqedilyspuch" or a "umpalumpa" what ever, it does not matter.
Please don't stoop to their level, we should always be able argue freely, things should not stop just because of accusation of misogyny or misandry or nazism, etc, etc. Gender and radical feminist would love it if they can utter one word "misogyny" and all argument stops.
Bells
Staff member
Unscientific?
During implantation, fetally derived cells (trophoblast) invade the maternal endometrium and remodel the endometrial spiral arteries into low-resistance vessels that are unable to constrict. This invasion has three consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother's arterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient content of blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placenta becomes largely independent of control by the local maternal vasculature. Third, the placenta is able to release hormones and other substances directly into the maternal circulation. Placental hormones, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and human placental lactogen (hPL), are predicted to manipulate maternal physiology for fetal benefit. For example, hPL is proposed to act on maternal prolactin receptors to increase maternal resistance to insulin. If unopposed, the effect of hPL would be to maintain higher blood glucose levels for longer periods after meals. This action, however, is countered by increased maternal production of insulin. Gestational diabetes develops if the mother is unable to mount an adequate response to fetal manipulation. Similarly, fetal genes are predicted to enhance the flow of maternal blood through the placenta by increasing maternal blood pressure. Preeclampsia can be interpreted as an attempt by a poorly nourished fetus to increase its supply of nutrients by increasing the resistance of its mother's peripheral circulation.
How is this not parasitic?
The placenta acts like a parasite to avoid attack by a mother's immune system, researchers have discovered.
A University of Reading team found it employs a cloaking device very similar to that used by parasitic worms.
A University of Reading team found it employs a cloaking device very similar to that used by parasitic worms.
So a foetus is now a "class of people"?
Interesting.
What do you think distinguishes you from a foetus? How are you different from say, an 8 week old still in utero, you know the cut off point where you distinguished brainwaves.. What makes you different from an 8 week old foetus? How are you different? Are you the same and worthy of the exact same protection under law?
Or are you indistinguishable?
Yes Bell that the whole problem: some people classify fetuses as people, hence why they have a problem with abortion. Not that they hate women, but like us they think murder is wrong. You can argue that this is personal belief, but so is the belief that "negros", jews and other "Untermensch" are not people either, what separates those beliefs from the personhood of a fetus? When dealing with the accusations of murder we need to have strict social/legal description of what is and is not a person, not personal belief, we need to legally define that a fetus is not a person, or at least not yet enough of a person to have a protected right to life over that of the will of its "hostess"... but wait haven't most developed countries already done this? So why are we still arguing about this? If pro-lifers want to reduce the "murder" of "babies" they could probably get much further with massive improvement in education and availability of contraceptives, a win-win for all.
Exceptionalism
The difference between the Negro and the fetus as such is the observable independent physical reality; the black man lynched was generally not still attached to his mother by a biologically-generated feeding tube. That this difference is meaningless to the anti-abortion advocates only reminds that they haven't really thought through the juristic implications of their argument.
Furthermore, while many people fail to think through the implications of their plans and intentions, this sin of omission—and, yes, at this point it is willful—would significantly affect the majority of the human species or, such as our world is sectioned, the majority of the population within the given jurisdiction, e.g., the majority of Americans.
In any other discussion, refusing to consider the implications of principle applied to effect would be considered fallacious. However, it would seem we are expected to accept an exception for the anti-abortion argument.
ElectricFetus said:
The difference between the Negro and the fetus as such is the observable independent physical reality; the black man lynched was generally not still attached to his mother by a biologically-generated feeding tube. That this difference is meaningless to the anti-abortion advocates only reminds that they haven't really thought through the juristic implications of their argument.
Furthermore, while many people fail to think through the implications of their plans and intentions, this sin of omission—and, yes, at this point it is willful—would significantly affect the majority of the human species or, such as our world is sectioned, the majority of the population within the given jurisdiction, e.g., the majority of Americans.
In any other discussion, refusing to consider the implications of principle applied to effect would be considered fallacious. However, it would seem we are expected to accept an exception for the anti-abortion argument.
Imagine the implication if we claimed a fetus was a person and yet women have the right to kill them, where would the slippery slope end with women granted the power to murder? No the personhood of the fetus must be disproved first.
It has everything to do with the question, as PVS is all about potential quality of life, just as a fetus has a potential quality of life. Pro-abortionists often use the extreme case of congenital defect to justify abortion on the grounds of potential quality of life (and then simply extend that justification to any reason for abortion without further ethical argument). If potential quality of life is relevant at all, then healthy fetuses have a right to life.
Otherwise pro-abortionists are not making an ethically consistent argument about congenital defects.
You are not justified in redefining scientific terms to bolster your argument. Again, people have historically done just that to justify disenfranchising some group by labeling them nonpersons. Do you think discrimination is a valid ethical argument?
So what does your redefinition of "parasite" ethically imply for conjoined twins or direct blood transfusion? Here, I will recap, since you cannot seem to be bothered otherwise.
If bodily separation and "being fed off" is the criteria for personhood:
- Does the first conjoined twin to, what, get its umbilical cut have greater personhood rights than the other?
If the mother's personhood takes precedence over the fetus, then the life of the second conjoined twin to be bodily separated from the mother should be forfeit. Or do we grant temporary personhood before the second umbilical is cut, and suspend a decision until we can figure out which twin is doing the most "feeding off" the other? - Does a direct blood transfusion donor have the right to revoke their consent with no potential threat to themselves resulting in recipient death?
The donor provides the same sort of consent as the mother does by engaging in sex. Does that consent imbue the donor/host with the prerogative for life or death?
These are ethical dilemmas which would help show whether or not you have a consistent ethical framework for your stance.
Bells arguments lack any ethical weight, so dismissing them is trivial.
Because it is ethically consistent with our determination of the end of human life.
Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism
Parasitism is defined by these characteristics:
- It occurs between different species.
The fetus is not only human, it shares 50% of its genetics with the mother. - There is no benefit to the host
Parental investment is an evolutionary necessity for the survival of the species. The mother succeeds by having more of her genetic material propagated through the species.
Right to life is the most basic protection accorded humans. You should try answering your own questions.
Bells
Staff member
No one is discounting that. However "personhood" is applied differently by different people.
Syne here believes it should be applied at 8 weeks. Others believe it is at the moment of conception. Others believe when it becomes viable. And others also believe it is at the moment of birth.
So who is right?
No one is discounting that either.
However when you have some people applying this rule and determining that women are simply incapable of making responsible decisions and thus, are not capable of making responsible decisions when it comes to their own sexual and reproductive organs, you have to wonder where this blanket stereotype stems from.
Ah gee, I don't know!
Maybe the amniotic sac, amniotic fluid and the giant frigging umbilical cord connecting the foetus to the mother so that it can survive would count as a pretty big difference, wouldn't you say?
What makes you different to a foetus attached to its mother by an umbilical cord? Do you require her body for your survival? I mean, do you still have an umbilical cord connected to your mother's womb for sustenance, oxygen, etc? I'd guess the answer is no.
"Jews, Negros and Untermensch" are exactly like you, born and independent human beings and wholly unconnected to their mother's uterus.
To put it simply, one has the potential to be a person, the other is a person.
If you have issues telling the difference between this:
and
Then I would suggest you see an optometrist.
Because pro-lifers are trying to change the laws to apply personhood from the moment of conception.
Because women are being jailed for miscarrying.
Because women are being denied medically safe abortions for personal and medical reasons because another has a religious belief that they feel gives them rights over the wombs and sexual organs of women.
Because women, even rape victims and victims of incest, are being denied the even emergency contraception, because some believe life begins at conception.
Because women's lives are being put at risk because some hospitals are refusing to provide life saving care even in ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage, because there is a foetal heartbeat because of the religious beliefs of others.
Want me to go on?
Alas, many prefer to teach abstinence only and refuse to provide sex education and educate about contraception. Hell, some even want to ban contraception altogether.
Semantics, Logic, and Other Notes
I'm starting to wonder if it's a semantic issue:
The problem with the above point from the topic proposition might well be that in order to suspend a woman's general human rights she must first have them. At least that would explain how we're six hundred posts into this discussion and still arguing personhood as if there is actually a functional assertion of personhood on the table.
The simple say-so of the anti-abortionists is heard; this is a person because they say so. The counterpoint is listed; there is a difference between "parasite" and "person", as such.
There is no bottom to the rabbit hole you're spelunking. The lack of valid, reliable, affirmative assertions about this asserted personhood leaves it to be defined by those who would disagree with it. As we're all aware, one can say, "No, that's not what I mean," until Hell freezes over, but we'll never know what one actually means unless one actually comes out and tells us. And, of course, there are degrees in between, which me must explicitly acknowledge lest the discussion hang on pedantry. But this is a difficult affirmative assertion; it should not originate with those who reject the general premise.
ElectricFetus said:
I'm starting to wonder if it's a semantic issue:
• Acknowledging "personhood" (life at conception), from the moment of conception, a woman's general human rights are suspended. Legislation affording them specific interim "maternal rights" will be crafted to preserve all but the woman's right to govern her own body and what takes place within it.
(#3010626/2)
(#3010626/2)
The problem with the above point from the topic proposition might well be that in order to suspend a woman's general human rights she must first have them. At least that would explain how we're six hundred posts into this discussion and still arguing personhood as if there is actually a functional assertion of personhood on the table.
The simple say-so of the anti-abortionists is heard; this is a person because they say so. The counterpoint is listed; there is a difference between "parasite" and "person", as such.
There is no bottom to the rabbit hole you're spelunking. The lack of valid, reliable, affirmative assertions about this asserted personhood leaves it to be defined by those who would disagree with it. As we're all aware, one can say, "No, that's not what I mean," until Hell freezes over, but we'll never know what one actually means unless one actually comes out and tells us. And, of course, there are degrees in between, which me must explicitly acknowledge lest the discussion hang on pedantry. But this is a difficult affirmative assertion; it should not originate with those who reject the general premise.
The argument between the claim of personhood of the pro lifers and the claim of the pro choice side is resolved by the scientific fact that "until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype one cannot prove that the product of conception is alive or human."
So neither the argument of the pro life side nor the argument of the pro choice side carries the day. The fact is that it is not a person from the prospective view, because it cannot be proved to be alive and human ---scientifically--- 100 percent of the time. Sometimes it may be a human and sometimes it may not. Some can say it is a potential person, but in a prospective view it may not ever be a potential person. To be a potential person it must have the ability to become a person. And 42 percent of conceptions cannot become a person. A real human person is a human person all the time. The typical person of the pro life movement is only a person retrospectively, not prospectively. And the fetus is a parasite all the time until birth, not because it is a person that is acting as a parasite, but because it is not a person at all and is a parasite. It is in fact just a parasite that may, if the DNA is correct, on some occasions become a born person.
Only the retrospective person, at conception,-- of the pro life imagination-- is a person at conception.
Not legally, legally the status of personhood is very finite and fixed.
That personal opinion, but what is the legal opinion? The legal opinion (at least dirived from Roe v. Wade) is that a fetus is not a person, but it status as person is gradient and 3rd term fetuses are close enough to person for states to decide if it legal or not to abort those (less then 1% of abortions anyways). The legal opinion is all that matters or else Klan members could be drag black people behind their trucks and claim "Oh those aren't people" and get away with it.
Irrelevant, if a fetus is not a person it does not matter if (as statistical evidence shows) it was conceived in irresponsibility, the mother has a right to abort just as much as a smoker should have a right to chemotherapy.
Statistical evidence, mind you again that some women are irresponsible is irrelevant to their rights. More so we can't punish all women for the acts of some, not even all women that want abortions want so simply because they did not or irresponsibly used contraceptives, and demanding proof of responsibly for abortion would be impractical.
The question was rhetorical, it was meant to show that some people operate by a logic that is utterly nonsensical to the rest of us, and as such we have laws to render such opinion illegal to innact. Your inability to see or acknowledge the breath of human insan/eer I mean consciousness bothers me. I fear you believe they can be understood simply as misogynist, I believe there is no simple explanation for their thinking, at least not all of them, and that misogyny for misogyny sake is the least likely and downright retarded of simplest explanations.
And yes the pro-lifers are trying hard to try to stop the "murder" of "babies", despite how laws have progressed against them. Many are religious and hence why contraceptives are unthinkable to them.
Nothing that is based upon statute law, common law or constitutional law is finite and fixed.
The only thing that is finite and fixed is the fact that until the DNA expresses the correct phenotype, the Product of Conception cannot be proved to be alive, capable of being born alive or that it has enough human DNA to be human.
All of your other theories and beliefs are susceptible to change at public whim.
Bells
Staff member
I am not the one you should be trying to convince all of this to. I am pro-choice, remember?
These are the very arguments pro-choice have been making for years. And yet, here we are.
I meant relative to personal opinion, nit picker.
I think that is what I was saying already, same to the belief that birth defines personhood
Bells,
No I want to convince you that the pro-lifers are not simply doing it to hate women for hating women sake.
Bells
Staff member
Some do and some do not.
For example, those who believe women are too stupid or irresponsible to know or do better, I'd say have a problem with women, wouldn't you?
Laws are personal opinion as well. So I am not nit picking. Scientific facts are not personal opinion and rule over the issue of abortion.
The greatest error of the pro choice movement is that they base a woman's rights on opinion rather than basing the right to autonomy on scientific law AND opinion.
Bells,
There is a disjunction in the belief that there is no misogyny and a woman's civil rights. It is just fine to love the fetus so much that you want them all saved. The disjunction between love and misogyny that makes one feel that his beliefs should outweigh the rights of woman is what proves misogyny. So I believe that pro lifers, both men and women pro lifers, are misogynist that believe that women should submit to men. A man would never get away with imposing his unjust belief, for an indefinite period on another man (think of slavery). Such an act would drive men to kill one another. Pro lifers believe that as men they can impose their beliefs and women must submit.
That is not a love of life, that is disrespect with relation to women.
I detest semantic arguments, A can be B, but A has properties B does not, people can't be imprisoned, sued or executed on principle of personal opinion. Nor is Science the law, the law is more arbitrary of which science is not always a factor.
I'm pretty sure science backs mine and other's claim that a fetus is not a independent organism, it may be birth and become one, but it presently is not.
Also many pro-lifers are women, women that believe they can impose their belief on other women.
It is however an opinion that contingency (biological or otherwise) of an entity equates with a lesser grant of rights.
Sure, on some Machiavellian level of ruthlessness, there is a certain value in getting rid of contingent personalities (the old, the weak, the disabled) however human civilization seems to be built on the precept of the strong protecting the weak as opposed to sending them to the slaughterhouse or whatever.
Scientific Law is not statute law, you are correct there. And you are correct one cannot be imprisoned for violating scientific law. So I see your point.
I believe that you are correct here as well. My statement was incorrect. I should have said "all scientific law."
You are correct here as well. I think we agree on most abortion related issues.
While our lower brain function may be intact, without a functional cerebral cortex our minds are functionally dead. When this condition is demonstrated with a high degree of certainty, the end of personhood is certifiable. Prior to the middle of the second trimester of pregnancy, this is the equivalent neurologic state of a human fetus. By comparison your first trimester embryonic milestone is even less consistent with the realities of an end of life example.
- Status