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

[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] Except there are other cases than rape that can lead to a pregnancy without it being the intention of either person? Contraception, no matter how extensive, can always fail. Should they be seemed responsible for something that is essentially an accident? Shit, in your most backwater states, where religious fervor supersedes human decency, lots of adults probably don't even know contraception exists because of the piss-poor sex ed they receive. Should conservative lawmakers, who are undeniably responsible for an important amount of unwanted and unsustainable pregnancies, be asked to bear the associated financial cost?

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52830901]Refer to my early post, which already addressed this "potential person" argument. 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] I'm not saying it's a "potential person." I'm saying it's a person with potential brain function. Those are very different because, as we've already established, brain function isn't what gives humans their value. It wouldn't make sense to define personhood on brain function either, for the same reason (If it were based on brain function, then a chimp has greater claim to personhood than an infant.) [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] A dead human is not a person by any definition.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830926]A dead human is not a person by any definition.[/QUOTE] No one is talking about a dead person though, they're talking about someone in a vegetative state.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;52830940]No one is talking about a dead person though, they're talking about someone in a vegetative state.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure he's talking about an actual dead person. If he's talking about a person in a vegetative state, then I've already responded to that: they do have human rights. You can't go kill a person in a vegetative state without being convicted of murder.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830942]I'm pretty sure he's talking about an actual dead person. If he's talking about a person in a vegetative state, then I've already responded to that: they do have human rights. You can't go kill a person in a vegetative state without being convicted of murder.[/QUOTE] You can't just go kill a random person in a vegetative state but a person might have the legal right to euthanize them.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;52830952]You can't just go kill a random person in a vegetative state but a person might have the legal right to euthanize them.[/QUOTE] Firstly, letting someone die from natural causes isn't euthanasia. Secondly, the people making that decision are acting as proxies for the desires of the person in question, based on their inability to choose for themselves. Clearly that isn't what's happening with an abortion. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] The law around a vegetative state is also dependent on the inability to recover. This also wouldn't apply to an abortion, as essentially every fetus will grow to become a fully functioning person.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52830231]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] a fetus currently is a growing human, this is indisputable. semen is not human, it is the precomponents of a human. cumming into a tissue doesn't begin the process of growth.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830970]Firstly, letting someone die from natural causes isn't euthanasia. Secondly, the people making that decision are acting as proxies for the desires of the person in question, based on their inability to choose for themselves. Clearly that isn't what's happening with an abortion.[/QUOTE] Clearly, since we [i]can[/i] ask a fetus to choose for itself...??? [QUOTE]This also wouldn't apply to an abortion, as essentially every fetus will grow to become a fully functioning person.[/QUOTE] This is not even remotely true. Not every fetus will even grow to become a person at all, let alone a "fully functioning" one.

[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52830350] 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.[/QUOTE] aborting due to medical concerns isn't something i would personally consider selfish. i'm thinking more people who abort because they feel a child would cramp their lifestyle, which i feel is by definition self-centered.

[QUOTE]Clearly, since we can ask a fetus to choose for itself...???[/QUOTE] You took one part without looking at the whole statement. I said, "Secondly, the people making that decision are acting [B]as proxies for the desires of the person in question[/B], based on their inability to choose for themselves." Abortions are not made on the basis of what the person in the womb would want. They are based on the inconvenience and/or desires of the mother. Note that a family must get a court order allowing them to take a person in a persistent vegetative state off life support. They can't just make the decision unilaterally. If the person in question has a living will stating that they would like to be kept alive indefinitely, even in a persistent vegetative state, then it becomes a very difficult legal situation. [QUOTE=Geikkamir;52830988]This is not even remotely true. Not every fetus will even grow to become a person at all, let alone a "fully functioning" one.[/QUOTE] Out of the 51 million abortions done in the US, the VAST majority were totally normal. We don't make general law based on the exception or outlier.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830997]You took one part without looking at the whole statement. I said, "Secondly, the people making that decision are acting [B]as proxies for the desires of the person in question[/B], based on their inability to choose for themselves." Abortions are not made on the basis of what the person in the womb would want. They are based on the inconvenience and/or desires of the mother. Note that a family must get a court order allowing them to take a person in a persistent vegetative state off life support. They can't just make the decision unilaterally. If the person in question has a living will stating that they would like to be kept alive indefinitely, even in a persistent vegetative state, then it becomes a very difficult legal situation.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, honestly I don't even like the analogy that much in the first place. I agree more with the analogy that the law forcing a mother to bear a child is akin to giving hospitals the legal right to force patients to donate an organ.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;52831002]Fair enough, honestly I don't even like the analogy that much in the first place. I agree more with the analogy that the law forcing a mother to bear a child is akin to giving hospitals the legal right to force patients to donate an organ.[/QUOTE] That analogy seems to rest on the fetus being equivalent to an organ, which brings us right back to how you define personhood.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831005]That analogy seems to rest on the fetus being equivalent to an organ, which brings us right back to how you define personhood.[/QUOTE] I would say it's somewhat irrelevant, in either case the principle is the same. Should a person be denied the right to decide what is done with their own body if it means another person gets the chance to live? In fact honestly, in the case of an organ recipient you're dealing with a person that has a will to live and is capable of suffering, someone that actually cares whether or not they're alive, as opposed to a fetus that doesn't care at all whether or not it continues to exist.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;52831019]I would say it's somewhat irrelevant, in either case the principle is the same. Should a person be denied the right to decide what is done with their own body if it means another person gets the chance to live? In fact honestly, in the case of an organ recipient you're dealing with a person that has a will to live and is capable of suffering, someone that actually cares whether or not they're alive, as opposed to a fetus that doesn't care at all whether or not it continues to exist.[/QUOTE] There's a very real difference between killing a person and saving a person, especially in the law. Our law protects a person's right to their life. No one is allowed to take it from them. Our law does not guarantee that a person's life will be saved.

[QUOTE=krail9;52830366]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] if those children were actually conceived, then nothing is different. if they weren't, then they remain theoretical, an idea of potential as opposed to the real, physical nature of a fetus. nothing has begun, no process of growth. a condom doesn't stop growth in place, it stops it before it ever begins. i don't get why you seem to think i am against contraceptives, i would heavily prefer that people did what they could to prevent pregnancy than be irresponsible and abort their mistake. of course, as i have previously stated, if they can justify the procedure to themselves, i'm not going to stop them. to address your second point, I rescind my statement that wearing protection is minorly selfish. however, if you have only one or two children, you're not contributing to over population, at least not in the way you might be thinking.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831020]There's a very real difference between killing a person and saving a person, especially in the law. Our law protects a person's right to their life. No one is allowed to take it from them. Our law does not guarantee that a person's life will be saved.[/QUOTE] What is the actual, practical difference though?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830926]I'm not saying it's a "potential person." I'm saying it's a person with potential brain function. Those are very different because, as we've already established, brain function isn't what gives humans their value. It wouldn't make sense to define personhood on brain function either, for the same reason (If it were based on brain function, then a chimp has greater claim to personhood than an infant.) [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] A dead human is not a person by any definition.[/QUOTE] We absolutely did not establish that brain function isn't what gives people their value, we established that brain function is not the [I]only[/I] element, but it's a damn important one. Now, if we consider a brain-dead person to be dead, why is that? And a brain dead person [I]is[/I] considered dead by medical science, but their body is still alive. Their tissues are functioning, life functions are still proceeding. So why are they considered dead? Because they lack brain activity. To lack brain activity is to lack the basic requirements to be even considered human life. By the same criteria as brain death, a fetus is just as dead as a brain dead patient. This is because the biological processes to sustain life are not valuable, but the consciousness that life can provide is valuable. If a brain-dead human lacks consciousness, they might as well be dead matter for all we care. It's certainly not a person. Similarly, a fetus which lacks consciousness is not a person either. Also I fail to see how the "potential brain function" argument at all differs from the "potential person" argument.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;52831032]What is the actual, practical difference though?[/QUOTE] The difference is that we recognize human rights. I mean, sure, if you want to throw out human rights for a purely utilitarian ethics system, then your argument works, but that isn't how our society works now.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831037]The difference is that we recognize human rights. I mean, sure, if you want to throw out human rights for a purely utilitarian ethics system, then sure, your argument works, but that isn't how our society works now.[/QUOTE] I don't see how one is any more a violation of human rights than the other. In either case, a person requires the use of your body to continue living, and you are denying them that. Is it a violation of your right to bodily autonomy to force you to accept, or is it a violation of the other person's right to live to allow you to deny?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831020]There's a very real difference between killing a person and saving a person, especially in the law. [B]Our law protects a person's right to their life. No one is allowed to take it from them.[/B] Our law does not guarantee that a person's life will be saved.[/QUOTE] But it doesn't though and no, in the eyes of the US, the state is allowed to take the right to life from you.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52830986]a fetus currently is a growing human, this is indisputable. semen is not human, it is the precomponents of a human. cumming into a tissue doesn't begin the process of growth.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you've seen pics of foetuses but they're not what I would call "human". They look more like some kind of reptile in the early stages. They're not a person yet. I don't see how "growing to be" and "potentially" are any different ethically anyway. You're still using the potential future of the entity as justification for its current treatment rather than its current nature.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52831092]I'm not sure if you've seen pics of foetuses but they're not what I would call "human". They look more like some kind of reptile in the early stages. They're not a person yet. I don't see how "growing to be" and "potentially" are any different ethically anyway. You're still using the potential future of the entity as justification for its current treatment rather than its current nature.[/QUOTE] But how would you define "human" then? By how it looks currently? "You're still using the potential future of the entity as justification for its current treatment rather than its current nature." Would you throw away an uncut and unpolished diamond, or would you agree that even in its rough current state, that it still has value and should be treated as such?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52831092]I'm not sure if you've seen pics of foetuses but they're not what I would call "human". They look more like some kind of reptile in the early stages. They're not a person yet. I don't see how "growing to be" and "potentially" are any different ethically anyway. You're still using the potential future of the entity as justification for its current treatment rather than its current nature.[/QUOTE] growth is in the process, potential is a thought. one is like the blueprints to a house, the other is the foundation.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52831092]I'm not sure if you've seen pics of foetuses but they're not what I would call "human". They look more like some kind of reptile in the early stages. They're not a person yet. I don't see how "growing to be" and "potentially" are any different ethically anyway. You're still using the potential future of the entity as justification for its current treatment rather than its current nature.[/QUOTE] In your opinion, what are the defining aspects of a person?

[QUOTE=butre;52828737]but at what point is it no longer your body? the entire basis of pro life arguments is that a fetus is living being distinct from it's mother and the entire basis of pro choice arguments is that they're not (at least up to a certain point, I'm completely aware that very few would argue that an abortion at 8 months 29 days is fine and dandy in any serious capacity). with such a fundamental difference in viewpoints there's no way for the two sides to see eye to eye.[/QUOTE] Thanks for summing up how I feel, no matter what side of the issue I'm on. I sure am glad the issue is entirely black and white, especially considering my opinion on the subject isn't close to either of those halfassed generalisations

It might be a bit backwards in a couple of ways, but my thoughts can be summed up as such: * A woman has the final say on what can and cannot happen to her body. If she doesn't want to continue the pregnancy she has every right to terminate it. The demands placed upon her body by the fetus are incredibly high, not to mention social and workplace ramifications. * A fetus doesn't start being a human until it is sufficiently well developed that, if born at that instant, it stands a reasonable chance(Say, 75% or better) of thriving and turning out healthy without much intervention. Until such time as this milestone is reached, it is nothing more than a bundle of cells leeching off the mother's body. * Pursuant to the above point, I find no ethical concerns regarding aborting fetuses that haven't reached that point, nor do I find any regarding using tissues from aborted fetuses for research and medicine. In fact, the potential progress that otherwise would be incinerated makes it, to me anyway, unethical [i]not[/i] to use these tissues for research and medicine. * Abortion should be covered by all insurance plans, with a federal fund in place to provide coverage for people who aren't insured or who have insurance which doesn't cover it. Proof of requiring access to this fund is required, of course. * Religious and/or political beliefs of personnel providing medical services are not valid reasons to deny someone these services. Allowing this exception presents a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lies denying people all medical services based on such beliefs. This does not infringe upon the rights of practitioners, insurance providers, hospital administrators, et al, to believe whatever they wish as they're welcome to continue to hold those beliefs, but it does prevent them from denying other people vital services based on these beliefs. * Parents must be notified of, and approve of, abortions for under-18s. * Addendum to above, there should be a process by which an under-18 can legally override that parental consent for cases where the young lady seeking an abortion might be abused by the family if they were to find out, with the costs associated with seeking this override being supplied by the government and the process of applying for it being straightforward. * While the father has a right to be part of the discussion, ultimately, since it's not his body bearing the child to term he does not have any authority to override the mother's decision. He cannot force her to have one, nor can he force her not to have one, and must respect her decision either way. [QUOTE=sgman91;52831133]In your opinion, what are the defining aspects of a person?[/QUOTE] In the context of the abortion argument, to me, personhood doesn't start until the fetus is sufficiently developed that it would be able to thrive and become a normal person without major medican assistance if it were born at that instant.

Tudd is the best poster in terms of tip towing around the forum rules but the worst debater on this website. He never straight out 'gives' you an opinion, he is the biggest fence rider and never talks from the heart, always sharing skewed, warped views from others and he's like "here, this best represents what I think" without telling you what he actually thinks. Or shares articles or 'facts' what he thinks is evidence wrapped around an alt-right birthday package or if it isn't fails to extrapolate the actual purpose of what he's sharing. He says 'this video begs a question on moral and ethics' and then later 'I am ok with Abortions existing, but I think some people take it way too lightly morally' so tell us what you actually think Tudd. Because to everyone it seems like not only are you lying to them but you're also lying to yourself. I don't even think you know what your standing is at this point. In conclusion is there even a point going on to Tudds' threads anymore? I've avoided them for the longest time, only glancing on what was being posted in them because they all play out the exact same. - Tudd posts a controversial video/article - Tudd 'tries' to defend himself by posting external sources - Tudd leaves for the flames to die out. Rinse and repeat.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52831215] * Parents must be notified of, and approve of, abortions for under-18s. * Addendum to above, there should be a process by which an under-18 can legally override that parental consent for cases where the young lady seeking an abortion might be abused by the family if they were to find out, with the costs associated with seeking this override being supplied by the government and the process of applying for it being straightforward. * While the father has a right to be part of the discussion, ultimately, since it's not his body bearing the child to term he does not have any authority to override the mother's decision. He cannot force her to have one, nor can he force her not to have one, and must respect her decision either way.[/QUOTE] Have to heavily disagree here. There should be no requirement that a girl have to request permission over her sexual well being from a parent. If she is old enough to make the decision leading to her pregnancy, she should have the option to terminate it.

[QUOTE=Blazyd;52831114]But how would you define "human" then? By how it looks currently?[/quote] I'd say having some sort of consciousness or awareness of the self would be a requirement to qualify as a human. [Quote]"You're still using the potential future of the entity as justification for its current treatment rather than its current nature." Would you throw away an uncut and unpolished diamond, or would you agree that even in its rough current state, that it still has value and should be treated as such?[/QUOTE] That's a pretty bad comparison to make. The value of a human being isn't comparable to the market value of a material. It isn't a function of offer and demand, but rather inherent to the entity, unrelated to exterior changes. [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52831115]growth is in the process, potential is a thought. one is like the blueprints to a house, the other is the foundation.[/QUOTE] And what gives a foundation value other than the work and materials invested in it already? In the case of a pregnancy both are contributed by the mother. If the point to be made is that the mother should see the unwanted pregnancy to term because otherwise her own efforts and energy would be wasted, that's a pretty bad point to make. Comparison to inert, non-living objects are probably not really adequate for this subject matter.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52831296]Have to heavily disagree here. There should be no requirement that a girl have to request permission over her sexual well being from a parent. [/quote] I put an override in for cases where the parents knowing would cause her harm, but let's be realistic here. Legally speaking, until the child is 18, mommy and daddy have a right to know what little julie is up to. [quote]If she is old enough to make the decision leading to her pregnancy, she should have the option to terminate it.[/QUOTE]And she would. I put a provision in specifically to act as a catch-all for scenarios where the parents would be abusive to her. And most level-headed parents would be ok with it, especially knowing the ramifications of making the kid take it to term. Also, it can be argued...and this is a large part of the argument behind age-of-consent laws...that the body is physically capable of reproducing long before the mind is mature enough to make the decision to do so. Kids are notoriously bad about making really dumb decisions, bad about not weighing the consequences of their actions, blablabla. Especially considering the horrid state of sex ed in America, you can't reasonably expect late middle schoolers/early high schoolers of being capable of making that decision like you can an adult. All they know is it's really fun and feels really good to put certain parts of their bodies together in a certain manner, and so they do such things. [i]Someone[/i] with a mind capable of making such decisions should be involved in the process, especially if the decision involved carries with it a risk of complications(And let's be honest, there are such risks associated with abortion). You need parental consent for any other medical procedure on a child that isn't treating something life threatening, and legally speaking, someone who's 17 years, 11 months, 30 days old is still a child.