A person with Down Syndrome on Abortion. "Let's pursue answers and not Final Solutions" - General

[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;52829901]What about microbes? Insects? Do you refrain from using antibiotics, do you sweep your path to make sure you don't step on any bugs, etc?[/QUOTE] I dont sweep my path any more than an elephant does. most microbes aren't hurt by crushing anyway. I don't refrain from any antibiotics either. refer to post [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1583686&p=52829072&viewfull=1#post52829072] my previous post[/url]

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52829969]a braindead person is essentially irrecoverable with our current medical science, a corpse kept alive by machines. there is no chance for them to grow into a life. a braindead person in a year will still be braindead if not actually-dead. a fetus, just conceived, would be about a 3 month old baby within a year. while they may both have the same level of brain activity, i do not see them as comparable. i believe people should have the right to abort so long as they are fully aware of and understand what it is they are actually doing, not obfuscated with abstractions that try to make the pill easier to swallow.[/QUOTE] If your only concern is about a person who potentially could have existed no longer having that potential, do you consider it a moral grey area for somebody to avoid conception altogether? What exactly is the difference between a. A couple conceive a child unintentionally. They are well-off and mature enough that they could reasonably raise a child, but they don't want to because they feel like their lives will be better without a child. and b. A couple deliberately avoid conceiving a child altogether. They are well-off and mature enough that they could reasonably raise a child, but they don't want to because they feel like their lives will be better without a child. In both cases, there is the potential for a child to be born by this couple should they so choose. In both cases, they are not killing anything which could reasonably be called a person (unless you want to further argue this point, but it seems like you're conceding it). In both cases, the parents are not allowing a hypothetical person to be created, who otherwise could have lived a reasonably happy life. The only difference between these two cases is that in case A, an embryo lacking the mental capacity to reasonably be described as a person has been conceived. Wherein lies the substantial ethical difference that makes the parents in case A selfish, while the parents in case B are not? [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;52829978]Pretty sure a 23 week old baby has more synapse activity than a cockroach[/QUOTE] I was operating under the assumption that TheTalon's claim of "23 weeks being when synapses start firing" was correct. If it's not correct, my main point was that, at the time when synapses start firing, a fetus has far less synaptic activity than many organisms which we do not provide human rights to. There are many such organisms which we would kill in a heartbeat if we knew that doing so would prevent the substantial suffering that can come with pregnancy and childbirth.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52829988]I was operating under the assumption that TheTalon's claim of "23 weeks being when synapses start firing" was correct. If it's not correct, my main point was that, at the time when synapses start firing, a fetus has far less synaptic activity than many organisms which we do not provide human rights to. There are many such organisms which we would kill in a heartbeat if we knew that doing so would prevent the substantial suffering that can come with pregnancy and childbirth.[/QUOTE] 23 week old babies can literally move their arms and shit, it's pretty much a baby at that point. I mean I think you really need to consider the potential breadth of your logic here and how it could easily be used to justify stuff like what Murray Rothbard suggested where parents should be legally allowed to starve their children to death as they apparently shouldn't be obligated to care for them.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52829988]The only difference between these two cases is that in case A, an embryo lacking the mental capacity to reasonably be described as a person has been conceived. Wherein lies the substantial ethical difference that makes the parents in case A selfish, while the parents in case B are not?[/QUOTE] in a sense case b is selfish as well but the proper precautions were taken to ensure the process of growth into a human never started in the first place. once that growth starts, the longer it proceeds the less ethical it gets in my personal view. if someone is able to justify abortion to themselves, then so be it, i can see cases where it would be easy to justify. but, if the couple is in a position to where they are capable of raising the child and they choose not to because they want a better life for themselves, that is by definition being self-centered. you may not agree, but things change once the actual process begins.

[QUOTE=butre;52829883] there's [B]no such thing as an unimportant life[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=butre;52829953]I do avoid killing bugs yes thanks, [B]but they're not human life[/B] so its a bit of a non sequitur. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=butre;52829979][B]I dont sweep my path any more than an elephant does[/B]. most microbes aren't hurt by crushing anyway. [B] I don't refrain from any antibiotics either[/B]. refer to post [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1583686&p=52829072&viewfull=1#post52829072] my previous post[/url][/QUOTE] ???

I believe pro-lifers that think that abortion isn't acceptable and that people can live happy and pain free with severe physical and mental impairments regardless should either: A. Have to work with said humans that have such disease and impairments for a prolonged period, maybe yearly, and see the difference in function between said peoples, and feel the exponential dread, apathy, and other feelings that build up from having to take care of them on a daily bases. B. Adopt said children or dependents with a debilitating disease, function, mutation etc. C. Directly have to sponsor/fund a child or dependent with said abnormalities to a degree, since one impaired life that is bad enough to warrant abortion most likely ruined or heavily handicapped the potential financial, social, and even physical and mental opportunities of several others should the family have to devote time and care to them. Some of these persons do lead a life that's happy and somewhat independent, however a great bunch do not have the emotional or physical control or mental fortitude to do so and are then stuck in care for decades if not for life. 99% of the people that are against abortion of such cases turn right around and don't even help or put themselves in the situation of the subject or caretakers. This is essence of "Do not abort anyone, that's a precious life, but fuck you once you get out of that woman's snatch, and fuck you to the people who have to live with them and care for them because they or someone shouldn't have had them in the first place." Even though accidents happen, even when parties were being safe. The uncontrollable can happen, like rape. Get real.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52829928]this is a poor line of reasoning to try and convince a pro-life person to look at things from a different point of view for one pretty big reason: a cockroach does not and never will become a human. i personally think abortion is fine but i'm under no delusions that it is not snuffing out a human life before it gets a chance to truly live it. people should accept that calling it just a clump of cells is meant to abstract the concept and deflect from the truth that that clump of cells has a very real chance of growing into something with thoughts and feelings, dreams and fears. aborting it while it is still a fetus, before it has ever had a chance to experience life, can be the most merciful option, such as in cases of majorly life-altering birth defects, progeny of traumatic experiences, and inability to properly support a child. however, i feel personally that an abortion got because a person does not want a child yet they have the financial stability to raise a child is one that is really quite selfish.[/QUOTE] If potential existence is to be taken into account then you should refrain from jerking off and preserve your seed. What matters is what it currently is, not what it [I]could[/I] have been.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52829978]Pretty sure a 23 week old baby has more synapse activity than a cockroach[/QUOTE] I think they mean foetus, an almost 6 month year old 'newborn' certainly has more going on neural activity wise than insects.

Hard Mode Lightning Round: let the Fetus choose

[QUOTE=GunFox;52829801]3.)Yes. It is a binary decision. That is the point. If life begins at conception, then 1000 zygotes is the same as 1000 lives. Which has more value? The zygotes are of great value for both sides of the debate. The question at hand is which is MORE valuable to you?[/QUOTE] well actually no its not. most pro-life people-- any person thats not completely fucking retarded, in fact-- will agree that the life of a 5 year old person is more valuable than any amount of zygotes. that burning building question is the most inane, strawman way of phrasing the question "is a zygote worth as much as a person's life?" [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52829928]this is a poor line of reasoning to try and convince a pro-life person to look at things from a different point of view for one pretty big reason: a cockroach does not and never will become a human. i personally think abortion is fine but i'm under no delusions that it is not snuffing out a human life before it gets a chance to truly live it. people should accept that calling it just a clump of cells is meant to abstract the concept and deflect from the truth that that clump of cells has a very real chance of growing into something with thoughts and feelings, dreams and fears. aborting it while it is still a fetus, before it has ever had a chance to experience life, can be the most merciful option, such as in cases of majorly life-altering birth defects, progeny of traumatic experiences, and inability to properly support a child. however, i feel personally that an abortion got because a person does not want a child yet they have the financial stability to raise a child is one that is really quite selfish.[/QUOTE] i 100% agree with you (except for that last part about selfish people, because accidental conception can happen and it's not just somebody's wallet, it's the effects it may have on a woman's entire BODY including but not limited to possible death, postpartum depression, hormonal imbalance, damage to the vagina, etc.), and it's something that most people here are missing. abortion is a very grave matter that is under no circumstances meant to be taken lightly. the question that needs to be asked isn't "is a fetus or zygote or whatever ALIVE?" but rather "is an unborn child MEANINGFULLY alive?" if its life isn't "meaningful" then there's no good reason to deny a woman the choice to end it.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52830024]in a sense case b is selfish as well but the proper precautions were taken to ensure the process of growth into a human never started in the first place. once that growth starts, the longer it proceeds the less ethical it gets in my personal view. if someone is able to justify abortion to themselves, then so be it, i can see cases where it would be easy to justify. but, if the couple is in a position to where they are capable of raising the child and they choose not to because they want a better life for themselves, that is by definition being self-centered. you may not agree, but things change once the actual process begins.[/QUOTE] you missed the point here. what makes the bundle of cells any different to the infinite theoretical children who could be conceived every second if people had more unprotected sex? unless you didn't misread and you're actually saying that it's selfish not to have children, which is pretty absurd given how big an issue overpopulation is

[QUOTE=butre;52829072] the second is attacking the appeal to emotion used by the argument, where there's a terrified screaming 5 year old girl and a jar of embryos just sitting there. he modifies the argument to add a similar emotional response to the embryos (using the example that it's you're infertile, they're your embryos, and these embryos are the only chance for you to have a child of your own) and states that many if not most would save the embryos at this point, looking back to the first point. [/QUOTE] What planet are you guys from where you think reasonable humans would choose to save tubes of their cells over a child? I'm pretty sure people would save a caged animal over tubes of cells, even if they were their only chance of having a "child of their own".

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52829874]A cockroach is a living life, with more synapses firing than something 23 weeks in the womb. Do we consider cockroaches to be persons? Being alive does not make something a person.[/QUOTE] This same type of argument leads to legal infanticide, as people like Peter Singer have argued. If the value of human life is based on intelligence or mental capacity, then infants ought to have less rights than many animals. I see no possible argument for both denying inherent value of human life while also upholding the idea of human rights.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830619]This same type of argument leads to legal infanticide, as people like Peter Singer have argued. If the value of human life is based on intelligence or mental capacity, then infants ought to have less rights than many animals. I see no possible argument for both denying inherent value of human life while also upholding the idea of human rights.[/QUOTE] It is possible to agree on the inalienable nature of human rights while denying the inherent value of a fetus, by the simple logic that a fetus is not "human life". It's developing into human life, yes, but it's not there yet. My own take on abortion is that until the baby is able to have basic physiological function on its own (meaning if it's able to breathe, eat and shit and has a steady heartbeat), its existence falls entirely to the decision of its parents. When it's capable of sustaining itself on a most basic level then it can be considered a human being and a separate entity in its own right.

For some reason I thought Tudd was a libertarian, I guess I was wrong.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52828459] Truly a video that begs a question on moral and ethics.[/QUOTE] His parents chose to raise him, they didn't abandon him when they learned of his condition, they [I]chose this many times over.[/I] Don't assume everybody else should be forced to make the same choice.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;52830304]Hard Mode Lightning Round: let the Fetus choose[/QUOTE] Technically if you were a fetus and were intellectual enough to know what Down's syndrome is, you probably wouldn't want to live, knowing the difficulties you'd have in your life

No one should have the right to legislate what people do with their own body, this should be the primary principle for keeping abortion legal, but conservatives are not about "small government" or "freedom" but rather about pushing their own reactionary emotions into legislation. Too bad we're stuck with them, not only in Congress but in this forum itself...maybe that's the reason why he's still here?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830619]This same type of argument leads to legal infanticide, as people like Peter Singer have argued. If the value of human life is based on intelligence or mental capacity, then infants ought to have less rights than many animals. I see no possible argument for both denying inherent value of human life while also upholding the idea of human rights.[/QUOTE] I see no possible argument for both claiming the [I]inherent[/I] value of human life while also denying human rights to braindead humans. There's nothing inherently valuable about human life without any intelligence or mental capacity, so we have to work from there. As an embryo develops from zero mental capacity to something more closely resembling a child, the ethical questions become more serious. But to say that the moment synapses start firing is somehow a reasonable time for abortion to be cut off, while a braindead person with more neural activity can be legally killed, is nonsense. I'm not suggesting that intelligence and metal capacity are the [I]only[/I] metrics of what defines an organism's rights. A birthed human child indisputably should have access to human rights. Being human obviously has inherent weight in ethical considerations. Ultimately you have to choose a cutoff point where a developing fetus has reached a level of similarity to a child that the ethical issues start to become severe (barring of course edge cases involving genetic diseases, medical complications, etc.). Where exactly that point should be is a very tricky question, and would require a better understanding of human development than I have. Ideally you want to reduce the arbitrary elements of this and base your argument on ethically similar situations that have already been worked through by society. For my part, suffice it to say that the moment where synapses start firing is far, far too early, because that would clearly make the braindead situation a double standard.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52830648]It is possible to agree on the inalienable nature of human rights while denying the inherent value of a fetus, by the simple logic that a fetus is not "human life". It's developing into human life, yes, but it's not there yet. [B]My own take on abortion is that until the baby is able to have basic physiological function on its own (meaning if it's able to breathe, eat and shit and has a steady heartbeat), its existence falls entirely to the decision of its parents.[/b] When it's capable of sustaining itself on a most basic level then it can be considered a human being and a separate entity in its own right.[/QUOTE] This part is confusing. Are these the criteria that you would tell someone "you can kill the fetus/baby until it can do the following on its own: breathe, eat, shit, and pump blood"? Does it have to meet all that criteria to be considered worthy of life? And what do you consider being able to eat "on your own"? And what do you consider being able to breathe on your own? Because you don't breathe on your own in the womb so technically you don't breathe by yourself until you're actually born, and even then some babies are born not breathing and need to be put on a respirator so really they're not even breathing on their own in that case either.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52830820]I see no possible argument for both claiming the [I]inherent[/I] value of human life while also denying human rights to braindead humans.[/QUOTE] I would assume that being alive is relevant to one's status as a human. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52830820]I'm not suggesting that intelligence and metal capacity are the [I]only[/I] metrics of what defines an organism's rights. A birthed human child indisputably should have access to human rights. Being human obviously has inherent weight in ethical considerations. Ultimately you have to choose a cutoff point where a developing fetus has reached a level of similarity to a child that the ethical issues start to become severe (barring of course edge cases involving genetic diseases, medical complications, etc.). Where exactly that point should be is a very tricky question, and would require a better understanding of human development than I have. Ideally you want to reduce the arbitrary elements of this and base your argument on ethically similar situations that have already been worked through by society. For my part, suffice it to say that the moment where synapses start firing is far, far too early, because that would clearly make the braindead situation a double standard.[/QUOTE] You're right in general. The question is what defines personhood, and how do we apply it to a developing fetus. It's a hard question that deserves a lot of discussion. The position I have no time for is the who, "It's the mother's body" argument. It totally ignores the issues in question.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830858]I would assume that being alive is relevant to one's status as a human.[/QUOTE] Not sure what your point even is with this post. Are you saying that a braindead person is not alive? Because they absolutely are every bit as alive as a fetus.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52830864]Not sure why you ignored 90% of my post or what your point even is with this post. Are you saying that a braindead person is not alive? Because they absolutely are every bit as alive as a fetus.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I added my response to the rest after. By "brain dead" do you mean that their brain is actually dead (as in, the person is dead) or that they're in a vegetative state? If it's the latter, then yes, they do have rights. You can't go into a hospital and kill everyone on life support without getting accused of murder.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830858]I would assume that being alive is relevant to one's status as a human. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] You're right in general. The question is what defines personhood, and how do we apply it to a developing fetus. It's a hard question that deserves a lot of discussion. The position I have no time for is the who, "It's the mother's body" argument. It totally ignores the issues in question.[/QUOTE] Why? The mother is a living, conscious being fully developed. Their life is tied intrinsically to the life inside of them and vice versa. They do have a say in that. If you just "don't have time" for that argument because you deem it irrelevant to the discussion, that's unfortunate for everyone and pretty counter productive.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52830869]Why? The mother is a living, conscious being fully developed. Their life is tied intrinsically to the life inside of them and vice versa. They do have a say in that. If you just "don't have time" for that argument because you deem it irrelevant to the discussion, that's unfortunate for everyone and pretty counter productive.[/QUOTE] In essentially every case, barring rape, the mother, and father, took actions that brought the life into existence. By doing so, they have implicitly agreed to care for that life (hence child support). This is exactly how every other part of society works. If I agree to take care of you while in a coma, but just decide to leave one day and let you die because I don't want to anymore, then your death is on my hands.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830867]Sorry, I added my response to the rest after. By "brain dead" do you mean that their brain is actually dead (as in, the person is dead) or that they're in a vegetative state? If it's the latter, then yes, they do have rights. You can't go into a hospital and kill everyone on life support without getting accused of murder.[/QUOTE] I mean brain death. A fetus does not have any more nervous system activity than a brain dead person.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52830878]I mean brain death. A fetus does not have any more nervous system activity than a brain dead person.[/QUOTE] Correct, but a brain dead person is actually dead. They have zero potential for life. A fetus is not dead. It is simply in a state of life that doesn't currently have brain function. That's a pretty fundamental difference.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830873]In essentially every case, barring rape, the mother, and father, took actions that brought the life into existence. By doing so, they have implicitly agreed to care for that life (hence child support). This is exactly how every other part of society works. If I agree to take care of you while in a coma, but just decide to leave one day and let you die because I don't want to anymore, then your death is on my hands.[/QUOTE] The mother and father haven't made any agreement to take care of anyone until they actually allow the child to be born. Your analogy is more akin to abandoning or neglecting a child you've already allowed to be born, not abortion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830883]Correct, but a brain dead person is actually dead. They have zero potential for life. A fetus is not dead. It is simply in a state of life that doesn't currently have brain function. That's a pretty fundamental difference.[/QUOTE] Refer to my early post, which already addressed this "potential person" argument. [QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52829988]If your only concern is about a person who potentially could have existed no longer having that potential, do you consider it a moral grey area for somebody to avoid conception altogether? What exactly is the difference between a. A couple conceive a child unintentionally. They are well-off and mature enough that they could reasonably raise a child, but they don't want to because they feel like their lives will be better without a child. and b. A couple deliberately avoid conceiving a child altogether. They are well-off and mature enough that they could reasonably raise a child, but they don't want to because they feel like their lives will be better without a child. In both cases, there is the potential for a child to be born by this couple should they so choose. In both cases, they are not killing anything which could reasonably be called a person (unless you want to further argue this point, but it seems like you're conceding it). In both cases, the parents are not allowing a hypothetical person to be created, who otherwise could have lived a reasonably happy life. The only difference between these two cases is that in case A, an embryo lacking the mental capacity to reasonably be described as a person has been conceived. Wherein lies the substantial ethical difference that makes the parents in case A selfish, while the parents in case B are not?[/quote] I argue that there is no ethical difference between a person who has lost brain function, and one which does not currently have it but which could potentially develop it. In both cases, the "humans" in question lack brain function, and the potential for brain function in the future is not relevant, unless the person in case b is also to be considered in the wrong.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830873]In essentially every case, barring rape, the mother, and father, took actions that brought the life into existence. By doing so, they have implicitly agreed to care for that life (hence child support). This is exactly how every other part of society works. If I agree to take care of you while in a coma, but just decide to leave one day and let you die because I don't want to anymore, then your death is on my hands.[/QUOTE] This just doesn't really account for real life. I know your moral views regarding sex and what not come from a highly christian perspective, but that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation that people have sex, contraception methods fail, or they have not been taught about said contraception methods due to highly christian school boards and PTA groups refusing to allow such things to be taught or made available. There is a highly effective way to deal with this solution, and it isn't making people forced to carry babies to term that will then be improperly cared for, put up for adoption, or raised in unwilling homes. You can say "well they knew the risks" but at the end of the day a human being will go through suffering that they needn't go through because they were improperly raised and cared for in their early and formative years. I would agree with you, honestly, I would. If there was an actually effective campaign of education in your country that properly educated people in the methods of prevention and avoidance that are highly effective. I do not think shrouding abortions, sex, and the human condition from people will make anything better. But with the poor sex education that DOES exist, abortions need to be available to be used. I don't think they should be used regularly, I don't think it's a good thing to put people through, and I don't like the reality of it. But I can't make that decision for everyone, and I always find it jarring that someone else knows they can. They just need to be an option for the poorly sex educated nation that your country is. In the case of a coma, I am not in your body. Your life is not tied to mine. I did not go into a coma inside your ass, I am in a bed being kept alive by machines. My medical proxy has no effective ties to me. This analogy does not take into account the essentially parasitic nature of a fetus and is not effective for that reason.