Is it murder?

[Keno]

I couldn't give a fuck about what the law says regarding whether it's murder or not. Simple fact is, if you shoot my partner and kill my unborn child, I will end your life even if it's the last thing I ever do.

You're a big tough guy on the internet, huh?

Also to the people who think that you shouldn't abort your fetus just because it has toes and ears and fingers and such... are you serious? It is still JUST A BALL OF CELLS at that point. Higher brain function is what we use to determine the leap between fetus and human. And no, I don't mean higher brain function as in calculus and such, but more as in cognitive ability.

Silly, horrible argument that shows you have no knowledge of this stuff. Cognitive ability? In what sense? Until you're 2 you barely grasp that other people have their own intellect (why little kids will lie to you while covered in chocolate "I didn't eat it"- they don't know you can put things together).

You can't make a moral argument on this either way because it will draw in a lot of stuff. If you agree that killing a newborn is murder, then why? Because it has cognitive ability? It has no more cognitive ability than a cow, and you eat them. It has no more cognitive ability the day it is born than it did the day before. Survivability? Premature babies are born unable to survive on their own, it takes medicine etc. Adults are often unable to survive on their own without intervention, can they be killed? Even a healthy full term baby is unable to survive on it's own (dump a baby in the woods and...3 days until dead rotting baby!).

The "shoot off the balls" argument doesn't fly either, beckwin. A testicle left to it's own devices will never become a human. Neither will an ovary. However if two people create a pregnancy, that "little ball of cells" will, if left to it's own devices,become a human. You can say that the baby was none the wiser...so, I could shoot you in the head in your sleep. You would never know you died, you would feel nothing, be unaware of your own passing. That is not legal. I'm sure family will be upset...in this case I'm sure the mother and father feel a loss.

If you're going to argue about fucking cognitive ability, you might want to actually...know what that means.

Edit: I sure as fuck hope you're a vegan. Every animal you may eat for food is capable of feeling pain. It is a very primitive sense, and in many ways the neurological mechanisms that govern it are pretty well conserved. By your logic you're a mass murderer?

Wow you really have no idea what you're talking about. When someone mentions "survivability" of a baby, they clearly don't fucking mean it's going to get a job, feed itself, pay the bills, etc. Don't be daft... When people say "survivability" they are talking about the babies ability to LIVE at all (i.e. with the help of modern medicine and such). And you can't say that isn't the rule to use, because Roe v. Wade established that that is how you determine it.

EDIT:

Cognitive ability: 'Cognition' is a generic term describing the process and results of information processing (perception, conceptualization, problem solving, etc.

So regardless of what you think, new born babies do have cognitive ability. As do fully handicapped people. As do people in comas. As does every human (except perhaps one who is entirely brain dead, with absolutely no function whatsoever). And yes, I feel if someone is completely brain dead then they should be taken off life support.

[Melchiah]

People who hurt children are the worst kind of scum. Shooting a pregnant woman is absolutely disgusting. Those unborn children died during the commission of a felony, therefore I feel that the shooter should be taken to task. This was not an abortion, nor was it fetuses dying due to injury to the mother. The shooting was intentional, and the babies would have died from the bullet wounds since she was shot in the stomach.

Electric chair please.

[Demosthenes11]

So regardless of what you think, new born babies do have cognitive ability. As do fully handicapped people. As do people in comas. As does every human (except perhaps one who is entirely brain dead, with absolutely no function whatsoever). And yes, I feel if someone is completely brain dead then they should be taken off life support.

you do realize infants don't have the ability to problem solve and are arguably on the same intellectual level as most mammals?

[Nystul]

Wow you really have no idea what you're talking about. When someone mentions "survivability" of a baby, they clearly don't fucking mean it's going to get a job, feed itself, pay the bills, etc. Don't be daft... When people say "survivability" they are talking about the babies ability to LIVE at all (i.e. with the help of modern medicine and such). And you can't say that isn't the rule to use, because Roe v. Wade established that that is how you determine it.

EDIT:

Cognitive ability: 'Cognition' is a generic term describing the process and results of information processing (perception, conceptualization, problem solving, etc.

So regardless of what you think, new born babies do have cognitive ability. As do fully handicapped people. As do people in comas. As does every human (except perhaps one who is entirely brain dead, with absolutely no function whatsoever). And yes, I feel if someone is completely brain dead then they should be taken off life support.

I'll put my masters in development and neurobiology up against whatever you bring to the table. I know what survivability in the legal sense means, but I'm attempting to get someone to think beyond an easy definition that may not be as cut and dry as someone thinks. The question is WHY choose survivability? What is your intent? People that are trying to justify this stuff frequently throw out terms like survivability and cognition and all that stuff and I am pretty certain that they don't really understand what they are really trying to get at.

Lets go back to cognition. Going by this definition, it is the process and result of perception, conceptualization, and problem solving. This definition basically separates vertebrates from most invertebrates and plants/fungi/prokaryotes. So is the assertion that at some point, the fetus gains problem solving and perception, and then it's immoral or illegal to end that life? So then why is it ok to kill and eat a cow? A chicken? They have cognition. So clearly it can't be just cognition that is the trigger. So its just for humans? So when does something attain a level of humanity?

Better yet, if you're going to draw lines on this stuff and say that at one point it's not ok and another point it IS ok...where do you draw the line? At what specific point do you deem it ok? How do you define those criteria?

I'm no vegan...I have good friends that have had abortions...I stated my stance already that I wished they wouldn't happen but I understand that they do and I don't believe the government has a legislative right in terms of this issue. I'm arguing this because although in the end we basically agree, I think your logic- or more broadly the logic that most people in the pro-choice camp seem to adopt- is logic of convenience. IT seems poorly thought out because if you DO start to really think about it, the issue gets infinitely muddy and it becomes VERY hard to create rational distinctions among arbitrary levels of development.

[Senoska]

My argument is not solely based on the ability to feel pain. If you read my post I said, "higher brain function" and later reclassified it as "cognitive ability". Someone else mentioned that fetus (is that the correct plural?) can feel pain at the three month mark so I just noted that they cannot feel pain until the 7 month mark. I wasn't saying that the ability to feel pain should be the sole criteria for classifying humans and fetus.

"Higher brain function" and "cognitive ability" aren't really good criteria for determining humanity either. If you put a bullet in a coma victim or a mentally disabled individual, you'd be guilty of murder.

OHHHHHHHHHH REALLY?!

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9814/schiavobc4.jpg

[Kerberoz]

The "shoot off the balls" argument doesn't fly either, beckwin. A testicle left to it's own devices will never become a human. Neither will an ovary. However if two people create a pregnancy, that "little ball of cells" will, if left to it's own devices,become a human.

So if you take that zygote out of the uterus and plop it down on a table it will become a baby in 9 months? Cool.

[Khamsin]

Lets go back to cognition. Going by this definition, it is the process and result of perception, conceptualization, and problem solving. This definition basically separates vertebrates from most invertebrates and plants/fungi/prokaryotes. So is the assertion that at some point, the fetus gains problem solving and perception, and then it's immoral or illegal to end that life? So then why is it ok to kill and eat a cow? A chicken? They have cognition. So clearly it can't be just cognition that is the trigger. So its just for humans? So when does something attain a level of humanity?

Do you think other carnivores have these discussions over dinner every night? "Why are we eating this? Why is it ok to eat this rabbit, but not you?"

The "shoot off the balls" argument doesn't fly either, beckwin. A testicle left to it's own devices will never become a human. Neither will an ovary. However if two people create a pregnancy, that "little ball of cells" will, if left to it's own devices,become a human.

So if you take that zygote out of the uterus and plop it down on a table it will become a baby in 9 months? Cool.

Removing a zygote and plopping it down on a table is hardly leaving it to it's own devices. Is there something wrong with just leaving it where it was and making that evaluation based on how it'll do without removing it or otherwise trying to harm it?

[Nystul]

The "shoot off the balls" argument doesn't fly either, beckwin. A testicle left to it's own devices will never become a human. Neither will an ovary. However if two people create a pregnancy, that "little ball of cells" will, if left to it's own devices,become a human.

So if you take that zygote out of the uterus and plop it down on a table it will become a baby in 9 months? Cool.

How does it go from "left to it's own devices" to "placed in an environment it can't survive in"

Lets go back to cognition. Going by this definition, it is the process and result of perception, conceptualization, and problem solving. This definition basically separates vertebrates from most invertebrates and plants/fungi/prokaryotes. So is the assertion that at some point, the fetus gains problem solving and perception, and then it's immoral or illegal to end that life? So then why is it ok to kill and eat a cow? A chicken? They have cognition. So clearly it can't be just cognition that is the trigger. So its just for humans? So when does something attain a level of humanity?

Do you think other carnivores have these discussions over dinner every night? "Why are we eating this? Why is it ok to eat this rabbit, but not you?"

Thanks for responding with this- you're actually getting right at something I was hoping someone would get to. There are levels of cognition.

Humans love categorizing things. Nature doesn't build anything into categories. Reality is a continuum, and for our convenience humans love breaking things into groups. Cognition is not all or nothing. Intelligence is not all or nothing. To be human is not all or nothing. Christ, there are around 8 different definitions of what a species is- geographic isolation, reproductive isolation (by chronology or genetics), blah blah blah.

To base a moral view on an arbitrary (cognition, trimester, survivability) notion is REALLY hard because there is more gray area than black/white area.

[Kuya]

The problem is that legality demands categorization, or else there wouldn't really be a point to it in the first place.

[Nystul]

The problem is that legality demands categorization, or else there wouldn't really be a point to it in the first place.

And as such, you better create a series of criteria that is about as ironclad airtight as possible. And I don't think people bother trying to do that.

[Kuya]

The problem is that legality demands categorization, or else there wouldn't really be a point to it in the first place.

And as such, you better create a series of criteria that is about as ironclad airtight as possible. And I don't think people bother trying to do that.

And you already know that there are practically no such things as absolutes and that you will get exceptions and strange situations that begin to blur limitations in any given event.

My opinion on this whole situation is that, whether or not it may be wrong to abort a child, it is in the best interests of many to have it aborted because a child can be a economic burden, a danger to the mother's life, or because the parent is simply not in the position to properly care for the future infant, same way as it is in the interests of those involved in this situation to have the guy charged for two murders instead of one. Prerogatives.

[Beckwin]

Survivability works pretty well. Prior to being survivable, the fetus is completely dependent on the mother for all biologic function/existence in this world, and throughout the pregnancy, is technically infringing on the mother and her well-being. It is not an independent being and additionally it's capacity to think and feel is in serious question. Essentially, you can view it like... a growth.

However once it can biologically function independently, things change- instead of aborting, you could induce labor and the thing would have a shot at biological function on its own; thus it's independent. coincidentally around this time is when it takes on more and more characteristics of (humanly) conscious being in terms of pain and thought.

[Kuya]

Also it needs to be taken into account that survivability/independence/cognition aren't just being used to define whether a fetus has a right to exists or not, they are also involved in the ongoing debate where it is in question if a human being who no longer has the ability to live without machines and seems to show no discernable mental activity, should be kept alive. Opinions are really divided.

[Beckwin]

In reference to the vegetable state, I think it should be up to those responsible for the person after careful consultation with several doctors. Doctors should also have the power to object based on professional opinion ("dude no, you can't take rich granpa off the tubes yet. I expect a recovery within a month"). Similar in a sense to the person responsible for the well-being of a fetus being able to choose whether to continue supporting it or not.

[Senoska]

Also it needs to be taken into account that survivability/independence/cognition aren't just being used to define whether a fetus has a right to exists or not, they are also involved in the ongoing debate where it is in question if a human being who no longer has the ability to live without machines and seems to show no discernable mental activity, should be kept alive. Opinions are really divided.

My argument is not solely based on the ability to feel pain. If you read my post I said, "higher brain function" and later reclassified it as "cognitive ability". Someone else mentioned that fetus (is that the correct plural?) can feel pain at the three month mark so I just noted that they cannot feel pain until the 7 month mark. I wasn't saying that the ability to feel pain should be the sole criteria for classifying humans and fetus.

"Higher brain function" and "cognitive ability" aren't really good criteria for determining humanity either. If you put a bullet in a coma victim or a mentally disabled individual, you'd be guilty of murder.

OHHHHHHHHHH REALLY?!

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9814/schiavobc4.jpg

This point needs to hit home, when someone has no brain function we no longer consider them "alive", do we?

[RKenshin]

So if you take that zygote out of the uterus and plop it down on a table it will become a baby in 9 months? Cool.

Removing a zygote and plopping it down on a table is hardly leaving it to it's own devices. Is there something wrong with just leaving it where it was and making that evaluation based on how it'll do without removing it or otherwise trying to harm it?

I'm probably interjecting with something that doesn't really apply to what you were trying to say, but... I think most pro-choice woman (or ones of related opinion) would say that the thing wrong with it is it is an unwelcome cause of suffering from moderate to severe pains, often depression, often ridicule (severity depending on age), many different forms of sickness, absenteeism from work/school as a result of the previous which can lead to many other problems, as well as others. Then, ultimately change their body and lives forever in delivering the baby... With a very small but still possible risk of injury or death.

While yes a fetus can't develop/live outside the womb environment, it can't do it inside either without causing problems for the parent.

I suppose more than anything, what this really comes down to is who you believe has more freedom and rights here? The parent or a developing fetus?

[Keno]

So if you take that zygote out of the uterus and plop it down on a table it will become a baby in 9 months? Cool.

Removing a zygote and plopping it down on a table is hardly leaving it to it's own devices. Is there something wrong with just leaving it where it was and making that evaluation based on how it'll do without removing it or otherwise trying to harm it?

I'm probably interjecting with something that doesn't really apply to what you were trying to say, but... I think most pro-choice woman (or ones of related opinion) would say that the thing wrong with it is it is an unwelcome cause of suffering from moderate to severe pains, often depression, often ridicule (severity depending on age), many different forms of sickness, absenteeism from work/school as a result of the previous which can lead to many other problems, as well as others. Then, ultimately change their body and lives forever in delivering the baby... With a very small but still possible risk of injury or death.

While yes a fetus can't develop/live outside the womb environment, it can't do it inside either without causing problems for the parent.

I suppose more than anything, what this really comes down to is who you believe has more freedom and rights here? The parent or a developing fetus?

Is that a serious question?

[miokomioko]

Murder? Nah...

Public service? Maybe!

[RKenshin]

So if you take that zygote out of the uterus and plop it down on a table it will become a baby in 9 months? Cool.

Removing a zygote and plopping it down on a table is hardly leaving it to it's own devices. Is there something wrong with just leaving it where it was and making that evaluation based on how it'll do without removing it or otherwise trying to harm it?

I'm probably interjecting with something that doesn't really apply to what you were trying to say, but... I think most pro-choice woman (or ones of related opinion) would say that the thing wrong with it is it is an unwelcome cause of suffering from moderate to severe pains, often depression, often ridicule (severity depending on age), many different forms of sickness, absenteeism from work/school as a result of the previous which can lead to many other problems, as well as others. Then, ultimately change their body and lives forever in delivering the baby... With a very small but still possible risk of injury or death.

While yes a fetus can't develop/live outside the womb environment, it can't do it inside either without causing problems for the parent.

I suppose more than anything, what this really comes down to is who you believe has more freedom and rights here? The parent or a developing fetus?

Is that a serious question?

Not really. It's meant as more of a statement that I feel sums up one portion of the ever-so-fun abortion rights topic. I'm not really looking for any kind of an answer to it, not that I'd object someone trying to answer it. Simplifying an argument into an easy yes or no question, strongly in favor of one answer, is a method of debate.

And despite what I and probably most others believe to be the right answer (that is, the parent has more rights/freedoms), people do disagree. Or at least will strongly disagree with it being simplified like I just did.

Regardless, as I said that statement/question/whatever was meant more to address the specific topic in Khams/Kerbs/the start of my first post, and not the entire abortion topic as a whole. But I suppose you could apply it both ways if you want to!