If a girl is raped and pregnant, should she keep the baby?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, at least you are honest.

again you completely misunderstand what it means to be unconscious.

the problem with a foetus is that up untill some 20ish weeks there has never been observed anything close to even unconcsiouss people, what they detected at week 20 was the most basic activity, what was needed for the rest of the brain to develop.

now no one knows excactly when or how consciousness emerges but untill we do most pro choice advocates want to err on the side of caution making the current limits of 12-16 weeks quite well chosen.

I don't believe that I have misunderstood the definition of unconscious.
Unconscious means that you are not self aware, a characteristic shared by both the unconcious person (by definition) and the foetus. It doesn't matter how complicated the thoughts of the unconscious person are, my point is that it he/she not aware of them.

Society regards it as perfectly ok to destroy complex systems which are non conscious - for example robots and personal computers

@Vexcalibur:


I forgot to point out in my last reply that I am comparing the morality of abortions to the morality of killing someone who is unconscious without their consent. Voluntary euthanasia is a different issue precisely because it involves consent.

An "unconscious person" still has brain wave activity. If they do not, then they are dead. "Brain death" is the current medical standard by which we determine "death."

A person who donates their organs after death has a body that is kept alive by machines. Their body is alive, but their brain is dead......until doctors cut out their heart, kidneys, ect. Then the body is as dead as the brain.

If it's cool to kill a living body with no brain, why is it not cool to kill a mass of cells with no brain? And not being "self-aware" is also a characteristic shared by unconscious people, fetuses, and trees. Is it not cool to chop down a tree?

Yeah. Ooh yeas the SLOPE! it is so slippery!

... oh wait it is not.


* The bunch of cells without a brain has not ever been a human being. Since it is unwanted by its own mother it has no ties with society. If we were to believe in a soul, it doesn't exist. It has not ever had any brain usage. More so, the earliest case does not even have a brain at all.

* More so, the bunch of cells in question is dependent on the sacrifice of the body of an actual human being.

So slippery slope is just that, a lame attempt at a fallacy. The considerations between an unconscious former-person and a fetus are entirely different so the slippery is not dangerous nor scares me. It is ridiculous to equate an unconscious body to a 10-ish weeks fetus.

Anyway, note I was talking about consensual suicide. If I tell my family that if I get into a vegetative state (or Alzheimer for that matter). I should be entitled to a good death.

"clinical" death precedes "actual" death by about 5 -7minutes.

Well since there is brain activity while the child is in the embryo stage, I guess you just admitted that abortion even in the embryo stage is killing another human being.

Remember the first Brain Activity that is detectible is only 48 days after conception, that's just about 1.5 monthes. A heartbeat is detected on day 28 after conception.

for the umpteenth time random brain activity does not equal a functioning brain.
the first signs of structured brain capability was at 20 weeks.

Define structured brain activity, cause I could argue you don't have structured brain activity.

Irony

You could certainly argue that, in the same way that you could argue that horses are the offspring of unicorns and centaurs.

@foxfield: conception is one point, recognizably human EEGs are another, and birth is yet another.

* There is no such thing a child in the embryo stage.
* When you say brain activity you mean electrical impulses. They are horribly irrelevant.

Your attempt at ad nausseum will fail as long as I am active. Thalamic brain connections do not exist until 26-th week. Without thalamic brain connections, the brain is not even plugged to the fetus. Pro-choice are ok with letting abortion be legal until 10-th week.

Repeating your brain activity pseudoscience won't magically make it true.

Explains why there is movement well before the 26th week.

You pro-abortionists have no case, so you engage in lie after lie after lie.

Name calling does not help; cite reliable sources if you want my respect, at least. And plenty of living things move without brain activity just by muscular impulse, BTW.

Anyways, I am completely pro-abortion because of:

1) The fact that gender equality is furthered by access to abortion: http://faculty.mckendree.edu/brian_fred ... uality.htm . Women are proven completely mentally equal to men and thus must logically be treated equally as a group.

2) I honestly do not care about the life nor the personhood of a very young human; do not confuse "very young human" with "person" for the former is genetic and the latter is sapience-based. It is far more important to determine the worth of a being, which I currently see the most rational manner to do so being a) Evaluating their potential for doing good and doing bad b) Evaluate their precedents of doing good and doing bad and c) Evaluating their current deeds concerning doing good and doing bad: Unborn humans do not have a precedent, unlike their parents, are completely useless (and will be for the next several years, at least (from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint)) and have a wide variety of potentials depending on their nurture and nature. From a strictly consequentialist and rational standpoint, to make it so half the world's population, females, being unable to control their reproduction in the name of very young humans would be completely illogical and hurt the human enterprise as a whole by making people, almost certainly women, care for often unwanted and often clearly physically or mentally disabled offspring. Unborn humans cannot be argued to be equal to fully grown parents in worth according to any rational manner of thinking.

How much longer is this poor pregnant girl going to be abused?

894 posts and no end in sight?

ruveyn