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

[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] That's the thing, if you want to make an arbitrary humanity line with a clump of cells there is no scientific basis or reason to stop at just a fertilized egg, all egg cells had the potential to be human just as aborted fetuses did

[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] So you would consider conception to be the point where something becomes human?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52831333]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] which is why i do not believe in restricting people's options. if someone wishes to get an abortion, fully realizes and understands what it is that they are doing, then i am not one who can or even should control them in that way. however, i can still pass personal judgement upon them and disagree with their reasoning [QUOTE=Tetracycline;52831394]That's the thing, if you want to make an arbitrary humanity line with a clump of cells there is no scientific basis or reason to stop at just a fertilized egg, all egg cells had the potential to be human just as aborted fetuses did[/QUOTE] a fairly big scientific reason would be that an egg cell requires a sperm cell in order to begin growing into a human. an egg cell will not spontaneously turn into a fetus without the introduction of sperm. all unfertilized eggs have the abstract potential to become a human, but only fertilized eggs are actively in the process of realizing that potential. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52831465]So you would consider conception to be the point where something becomes human?[/QUOTE] it isn't scientific reasoning that brings me to this, but i believe that conception is when the spirit begins to inhabit, or begins the process of inhabiting, the body. i think if you're going to slap it back to an ethereal existence, it is better to do it earlier rather than later.

[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] Saying something is "growing" requires an assumption of the future, a successful sperm cell can just as easily be said to be growing into a human if you assume it will successfully fertlize and survive an egg. It is arbitrary to say something will absolutely become something else, because it actually hasnt become that thing yet. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52831474]a fairly big scientific reason would be that an egg cell requires a sperm cell in order to begin growing into a human. an egg cell will not spontaneously turn into a fetus without the introduction of sperm. all unfertilized eggs have the abstract potential to become a human, but only fertilized eggs are actively in the process of realizing that potential.[/QUOTE] And a fetus is nothing without its mother, thoughts? [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] If you want to argue that you personally dislike abortion then that's totally fine and I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment that abortion should be avoided. Regardless, you should not legislate away people's rights because of how you feel

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52831477]Saying something is "growing" requires an assumption of the future, a successful sperm cell can just as easily be said to be growing into a human if you assume it will successfully fertlize and survive an egg. It is arbitrary to say something will absolutely become something else, because it actually hasnt become that thing yet.[/quote] a fully grown sperm cell is just that, a fully grown sperm cell. a fully grown fetus is a human. i personally have a difference in my worldview between an unfertilized egg and an uncoupled sperm cell. i see a fetus as greater than the sum of its parts. [quote]And a fetus is nothing without its mother, thoughts?[/quote] you do have a point on that, though a baby is nothing without a caretaker, as dependent on others as the fetus is on its mother. [quote]If you want to argue that you personally dislike abortion then that's totally fine and I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment that abortion should be avoided. Regardless, you should not legislate away people's rights because of how you feel[/QUOTE] that is what i have been arguing this entire time. i do not believe in restricting people's access to abort for any reason they so choose, i just think it should not be described as flushing a reptilian-looking parasite from the body, a paraphrasing of the description of abortion that i have seen before. i think it should be called what it is: cutting off the growth of a human before it is recognizable as such.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52831333]I'd say having some sort of consciousness or awareness of the self would be a requirement to qualify as a human.[/QUOTE] Do you need both of those to be human or can you have one without the other? Because consciousness and self-awareness are two different things. Babies only start becoming self aware around 15 months after they're born, but I hope you would agree that a baby 1 month old (with no self awareness) is just as human as a baby 20 months old (with self awareness).

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52831474]which is why i do not believe in restricting people's options. if someone wishes to get an abortion, fully realizes and understands what it is that they are doing, then i am not one who can or even should control them in that way. however, i can still pass personal judgement upon them and disagree with their reasoning a fairly big scientific reason would be that an egg cell requires a sperm cell in order to begin growing into a human. an egg cell will not spontaneously turn into a fetus without the introduction of sperm. all unfertilized eggs have the abstract potential to become a human, but only fertilized eggs are actively in the process of realizing that potential. [/quote] What's the ethical relevance of "beginning to realize that potential"? I agree that the potential person is more likely to come to exist once conception has occurred, but a potential person doesn't have any ethical relevance anyway. [QUOTE] it isn't scientific reasoning that brings me to this, but i believe that conception is when the spirit begins to inhabit, or begins the process of inhabiting, the body. i think if you're going to slap it back to an ethereal existence, it is better to do it earlier rather than later.[/QUOTE] Based on what? Are you basing this on literally anything at all? Who are you to say when the spirit begins to inhabit? Who are you to say it's better to send it back to "ethereal existence" earlier rather than later? Can you even explain what a "spirit" is? How can you even talk about criticizing other people's reasoning in the same post as this completely baseless argument?

[QUOTE=Blazyd;52831515]Do you need both of those to be human or can you have one without the other? Because consciousness and self-awareness are two different things. Babies only start becoming self aware around 15 months after they're born, but I hope you would agree that a baby 1 month old (with no self awareness) is just as human as a baby 20 months old (with self awareness).[/QUOTE] I say either because consciousness is tricky to define but I'd say beings who are self-aware are necessarily conscious. That doesn't prevent younger babies from being conscious though.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52831552]What's the ethical relevance of "beginning to realize that potential"? I agree that the potential person is more likely to come to exist once conception has occurred, but a potential person doesn't have any ethical relevance anyway.[/quote] it may have no ethical relevance to you, but to plenty of other people, that will factor into their decision to abort or not. [quote]Based on what? Are you basing this on literally anything at all?[/quote] my own personal spiritual beliefs which are influenced by Buddhism [quote]Who are you to say when the spirit begins to inhabit?[/quote] i am no one to dictate something like that, it is merely my view of it and it influences my opinions of the debate. as i've stated multiple times, i am not looking to deprive anyone of their right to self-determination based on my own beliefs [quote]Who are you to say it's better to send it back to "ethereal existence" earlier rather than later?[/quote] again, i am nobody to decide what the truth is for each person, but i feel that if you are going to deprive a life of existence it is probably better to do it earlier, before it gets a taste of it, rather than later. the fetus begins to develop the capability to sense within the first few weeks of gestation, and from the senses comes our experiential existence. it may not comprehend but it is still experiencing [i]something[/i] [quote]Can you even explain what a "spirit" is?[/quote] spirit is a very simple word for an incredibly complex topic. to continue using it, i believe there is some level of "spirit" in all things, with greater capability to react to stimulus indicating a higher level of "spirit". [quote]How can you even talk about criticizing other people's reasoning in the same post as this completely baseless argument?[/QUOTE] i was under the impression we were having a discussion. i'm not meaning to criticize any arguments (except i guess your initial cockroach argument), rather provide points which may be unthought of and to express my own view of the practice.

I never found the argument of "Well you/I wouldn't want to have been aborted for (reason)" particularly convincing. I wouldn't care if I was aborted because it would have been before I had any concept of life. I wouldn't have the possibility TO care. The only reason I'd care now is because I've been living my life and I've had experiences, but it's also long past the point that abortion could be any threat to my existence. Also arguing that you're denying the chance for a life is also kinda worthless, because there's an infinite number of things that could have "possibly" lead to life. If I winked at the girl at the coffee shop, or waited for the next bus, or gone to a different school, I might have given birth to the next Einstein or the next Ghandi. I also might have given birth to the next Stalin or Charles Manson. It's worthless to argue these kinds of emotional "what ifs".

[QUOTE=The Vman;52831661]I never found the argument of "Well you/I wouldn't want to have been aborted for (reason)" particularly convincing. I wouldn't care if I was aborted because it would have been before I had any concept of life. I wouldn't have the possibility TO care. The only reason I'd care now is because I've been living my life and I've had experiences, but it's also long past the point that abortion could be any threat to my existence. Also arguing that you're denying the chance for a life is also kinda worthless, because there's an infinite number of things that could have "possibly" lead to life. If I winked at the girl at the coffee shop, or waited for the next bus, or gone to a different school, I might have given birth to the next Einstein or the next Ghandi. I also might have given birth to the next Stalin or Charles Manson. It's worthless to argue these kinds of emotional "what ifs".[/QUOTE] That same exact argument would apply to killing you right now as well. You wouldn't care because you would be dead, yet that has no relevance on the fact that you would still be deprived of the life you would have had. The "what if" of a fetus developing isn't some abstract nothing. Barring any disease or trauma, it's the expected outcome.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52831657]it may have no ethical relevance to you, but to plenty of other people, that will factor into their decision to abort or not. [/quote] I already provided an ethical argument for why person potentiality is not a relevant ethical factor. If you disagree, provide a counter-argument. Otherwise your position comes across as arbitrary. [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] What is the ethical difference between case A and B where we can consider one to be in the wrong while the other is not? In both cases, potential persons have lost their potentiality. In neither case is an existing person being killed. Wherein lies the difference? [quote] my own personal spiritual beliefs which are influenced by Buddhism i am no one to dictate something like that, it is merely my view of it and it influences my opinions of the debate. as i've stated multiple times, i am not looking to deprive anyone of their right to self-determination based on my own beliefs again, i am nobody to decide what the truth is for each person, but i feel that if you are going to deprive a life of existence it is probably better to do it earlier, before it gets a taste of it, rather than later. the fetus begins to develop the capability to sense within the first few weeks of gestation, and from the senses comes our experiential existence. it may not comprehend but it is still experiencing [i]something[/i] spirit is a very simple word for an incredibly complex topic. to continue using it, i believe there is some level of "spirit" in all things, with greater capability to react to stimulus indicating a higher level of "spirit". i was under the impression we were having a discussion. i'm not meaning to criticize any arguments (except i guess your initial cockroach argument), rather provide points which may be unthought of and to express my own view of the practice.[/QUOTE] If you're just trying to clarify your own person beliefs, then fair enough. I'm just saying that it doesn't make for a compelling argument.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52831567]I say either because consciousness is tricky to define but I'd say beings who are self-aware are necessarily conscious. That doesn't prevent younger babies from being conscious though.[/QUOTE] For the sake of argument let's define consciousness as your awareness of your surroundings because through the numerous "definitions" of the word, that's the common element I see between them all. And define self-awareness as well, your awareness of yourself. So human development says a baby becomes "conscious" as early as 5 months (showing signs of things like working memory), and start becoming self-aware around 15 months. You're saying in order to be considered human, you need to show signs of [I]either[/I] consciousness (awareness of surroundings) OR self-awareness. The problem I have with that argument is that a newborn baby is neither fully aware of its surroundings, has no real working memory yet, and is not self-aware. So it fits neither of your "human" criteria. But ask anyone in the world and they'll say a newborn baby is just as human as you or I. Do you see what I'm getting at? When we're talking about terminating the life of a fetus/baby, there's no room for vagueness, apathy, or broad lines. You need to draw clear lines of what is acceptable and not acceptable and have them not contradict each other/have no loopholes because these are people's actual lives we're talking about. That's why loopholes in laws/policies are such a big deal because there is a lot at stake.

Other than being human, I don't think there's any standard by which to define personhood that wouldn't either include animals other than humans or exclude some category of humans, like infants, those in comas, etc.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831667]The "what if" of a fetus developing isn't some abstract nothing. Barring any disease or trauma, it's the expected outcome.[/QUOTE] A couple decides to conceive a child. They go to the doctor and find that they are fertile. The current expected outcome is a healthy child. The couple then changes their minds, and decide not to have a child, and do not conceive. Are they morally in the wrong for depriving a potential person of life? It was the expected outcome.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831667]That same exact argument would apply to killing you right now as well. You wouldn't care because you would be dead, yet that has no relevance on the fact that you would still be deprived of the life you would have had. The "what if" of a fetus developing isn't some abstract nothing. Barring any disease or trauma, it's the expected outcome.[/QUOTE] True, I wouldn't care after I was dead, but I certainly would before I died. Now that I'm alive I'd rather not be killed. It's true, depriving people of life is a cruel thing to do, but part of the reason for that is because they have a concept of life and a want to continue living. Why does it matter if the thing you're "killing" has no concept of life whatsoever? As for the what ifs, that's usually argued along the lines that you shouldn't deprive someone of being born because they may grow up to make the world a better place, which is a worthless argument because you have no way of knowing what someone's life will be like. As far as you know they may grow up into a murderer.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52831701]A couple decides to conceive a child. They go to the doctor and find that they are fertile. The current expected outcome is a healthy child. The couple then changes their minds, and decide not to have a child, and do not conceive. Are they morally in the wrong for depriving a potential person of life?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how to respond to this because it seems so pre eminently obvious that an abstract idea of something is different than the actual thing. In your analogy, there is nothing with potential. It doesn't exist yet. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=The Vman;52831706]As for the what ifs, that's usually argued along the lines that you shouldn't deprive someone of being born because they may grow up to make the world a better place, which is a worthless argument because you have no way of knowing what someone's life will be like. As far as you know they may grow up into a murderer.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't go nearly that far. In my mind, the potential is to be a full fledged person who ought to decide the path of their life for themselves.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831710]I'm not sure how to respond to this because it seems so pre eminently obvious that an abstract idea of something is different than the actual thing.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Remove the abstraction and look at what the actual thing is. The actual thing is not a person. It is, by all accounts, an unthinking mass of cells. That's what it IS. Right now. If you want to remove all abstractions and look at the fetus for what it physically is, it lacks any of the qualities which to we ascribe humanity. [QUOTE] In your analogy, there is nothing with potential. It doesn't exist yet.[/QUOTE] Of course there's potential. Do you know what potential means? They intend to have a child. that's the most likely potential outcome. Potential is an inherent abstraction and you can't argue the remove abstraction from the debate while also talking about the importance of potential people.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52831719]Exactly. Remove the abstraction and look at what the actual thing is. [B]The actual thing is not a person.[/B] It is, by all accounts, an unthinking mass of cells. That's what it IS. Right now. If you want to remove all abstractions and look at the fetus for what it physically is, it lacks any of the qualities which to we ascribe humanity.[/QUOTE] I'm still waiting for a realistic definition of a person. The bolded statement means you aren't actually getting the issue at hand. Sure, if you assume it isn't a person, then there's no argument. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] If you remove all "abstractions," then all humans are just complex machines made of cells. That isn't helpful. The entire idea of personhood is an abstraction.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831722]I'm still waiting for a realist definition of a person. The bolded statement means you aren't actually getting the issue at hand. Sure, if you assume it isn't a person, then there's no argument.[/QUOTE] Well then maybe you should read my posts. [QUOTE][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] I'm hardly qualified in terms of infant development to say at what point a fetus has reached adequate mental development to be considered a person, but I can certainly look at existing ethical precedent to set some clear boundaries. For instance, based on how brain dead humans are not considered persons, based solely on their lack of brain functions, we can safely say that any fetus with neural activity equal to or less than that of a brain dead human is not a person. We can also obviously set a clear boundary at birth, because obviously ethical precedent means the killing of a born baby would not be acceptable. The grey area lies somewhere between those two points. Again, I'm not qualified to give a more exact answer than that, but we can quite safely say that a fetus should not have rights before it has reached the neural activity of a brain-dead person, and that it has rights at birth, unless you would argue that these ethical comparisons are not comparable, but you seemed to have ignored my last post about brain-death so feel free to weigh in.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52831758]Well then maybe you should read my posts. I'm hardly qualified in terms of infant development to say at what point a fetus has reached adequate mental development to be considered a person, but I can certainly look at existing ethical precedent to set some clear boundaries. For instance, based on how brain dead humans are not considered persons, based solely on their lack of brain functions, we can safely say that any fetus with neural activity equal to or less than that of a brain dead human is not a person. We can also obviously set a clear boundary at birth, because obviously ethical precedent means the killing of a born baby would not be acceptable. The grey area lies somewhere between those two points. Again, I'm not qualified to give a more exact answer than that, but we can quite safely say that a fetus should not have rights before it has reached the neural activity of a brain-dead person, and that it has rights at birth, unless you would argue that these ethical comparisons are not comparable, but you seemed to have ignored my last post about brain-death so feel free to weigh in.[/QUOTE] Brain dead people do not lose their personhood because they have lost brain function. They lose it because they have lost brain function and there is no ability to bring it back. The lack of ability to recover is fundamental. This has nothing to do with qualifications, but of values. The idea of personhood, the value we give to people, etc. isn't scientific.

The abortion debate doesn't really have to do with what constitutes a human being, but rather should we allow one human to parasitically use another's body against the host's will.

I'm still waiting for a positive description of personhood. What makes someone a person? If it isn't only defined by mental capacity, consciousness, or self-awareness, then what is it? [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;52831772]The abortion debate doesn't really have to do with what constitutes a human being, but rather should we allow one human to parasitically use another's body against the host's will.[/QUOTE] Yes, because in the vast majority of cases one caused the other to be dependant on it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831775]Yes, because in the vast majority of cases one caused the other to be dependant on it.[/QUOTE] Should we refuse to remove parasites from people who chose to eat improperly cooked food

[QUOTE=Paramud;52831793]Should we refuse to remove parasites from people who chose to eat improperly cooked food[/QUOTE] Are insectile/viral/worm parasites humans? (It looks like we're back to the thing you said is irrelevant.)

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831722]I'm still waiting for a realistic definition of a person. The bolded statement means you aren't actually getting the issue at hand. Sure, if you assume it isn't a person, then there's no argument. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] If you remove all "abstractions," then all humans are just complex machines made of cells. That isn't helpful. The entire idea of personhood is an abstraction.[/QUOTE] Apologies, I got you confused with someone else who had made a different argument. [QUOTE=somebody else]people should accept that calling it just a clump of cells is meant to abstract the concept [/QUOTE] I thought you were suggesting that the abstract idea of potential persons before conception is not comparable to the abstract idea of potential persons after conception, but it sounds like you're actually not arguing that, and are instead arguing that the fetus itself is a person. That's addressed above. [QUOTE=sgman91;52831771]Brain dead people do not lose their personhood because they have lost brain function. They lose it because they have lost brain function and there is no ability to bring it back. The lack of ability to recover is fundamental. [/quote] Yes, that's what provides a distinction between a temporary vegetative state and brain death, but it doesn't provide a distinction between a fetus and a brain dead human. [quote] This has nothing to do with qualifications, but of values. The idea of personhood, the value we give to people, etc. isn't scientific.[/QUOTE] If consciousness is the most important element of personhood, as I have argued, then the development of consciousness in the womb becomes an extremely important element, and that absolutely requires qualifications to properly understand.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831771]Brain dead people do not lose their personhood because they have lost brain function. They lose it because they have lost brain function and there is no ability to bring it back. The lack of ability to recover is fundamental. This has nothing to do with qualifications, but of values. The idea of personhood, the value we give to people, etc. isn't scientific.[/QUOTE] do you put all your spunk in the freezer after masturbating so you can sleep well knowing you're not holocausting your potential children

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52831803]Yes, that's what provides a distinction between a temporary vegetative state and brain death, but it doesn't provide a distinction between a fetus and a brain dead human.[/QUOTE] Of course it does! Fetus' will, under totally normal circumstances, gain brain function. [QUOTE]If consciousness is the most important element of personhood, as I have argued, then the development of consciousness in the womb becomes an extremely important element, and that absolutely requires qualifications to properly understand.[/QUOTE] What else defines personhood? I'm still waiting for a full description. I dispute that consciousness is a fundamental factor based on the fact that comatose people, people asleep on anesthetics, etc. are all still people, even though they have a temporary lack of consciousness. I would also add that conscious animals, like chimps, are not given personhood status, even though their level of consciousness is higher than large numbers of humans (i.e. infants).

[QUOTE=sgman91;52831813]Of course it does! Fetus' will, under totally normal circumstances, gain brain function. What else defines personhood? I'm still waiting for a full description. I dispute that consciousness is a fundamental factor based on the fact that comatose people, people asleep on anesthetics, etc. are all still people, even though they have a temporary lack of consciousness. I would also add that conscious animals, like chimps, are not given personhood status, even though their level of consciousness is higher than large numbers of humans (i.e. infants).[/QUOTE] Well, as I said [I]before[/I], we can use ethical precedent to immediately say that after birth, any human has human rights. Because that's how actual ethical inquiries work: we take positions which are nearly unanimously agreed upon in a society, and compare them directly to other cases which are harder to define. So personhood has certainly begun by birth. It has also ended at brain-death. The only difference between a live person and a brain dead person is a total lack of any brain activity. Therefore, brain activity is a necessarily element of personhood. I can see no way to justify the consideration of a fetus which has less neural activity than a brain-dead human to be a person. A comatose person, a sleeping person, etc, all still have brain activity. They are undergoing temporary lapses in consciousness, sure, but that's not comparable to a fetus because a fetus is not undergoing a temporary lapse in consciousness. A fetus has never had consciousness. By killing a fetus, parents remove the potential for consciousness, but you're removing the potential for consciousness of dozens of children every day by not constantly having unprotected sex. You still have not provided any substantial argument for why the potential consciousness of a completely unthinking fetus is more important than the potential consciousness of an un-conceived child. They are both potential persons irrelevant to the fetus itself, which, again, is not conscious.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52831689]I already provided an ethical argument for why person potentiality is not a relevant ethical factor. If you disagree, provide a counter-argument. Otherwise your position comes across as arbitrary. What is the ethical difference between case A and B where we can consider one to be in the wrong while the other is not? In both cases, potential persons have lost their potentiality. In neither case is an existing person being killed. Wherein lies the difference?[/quote] i wouldn't say it is arbitrary. i feel as though i have adequately stated my position, it just considers factors that you yourself do not consider important or may even consider nonexistent. as that is the case, we're likely at an impasse. that's okay, it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to agree in the same way for such a personal topic. that is why i fully support people's right to choose. [quote]If you're just trying to clarify your own person beliefs, then fair enough. I'm just saying that it doesn't make for a compelling argument.[/QUOTE] somewhat clarification, somewhat an attempt to show that such a topic is quite muddy because there are people who consider less-material factors which, to them, are not easily discarded beliefs.