Abortion due to gender.

[Mary_Gail_36]

My criteria for personhood didn’t change, I was just explaining why I wouldn’t want to assume consciousness.

Honestly, I don’t see why you are using the word “subjective” over and over. Your criteria are no more objective than mine, even if you are not changing them. Whether they are your opinion, or whether a group of people hold the opinion they are God’s rules, it nonetheless comes down to personal belief and what you accept. In that regard, all beliefs any human being holds are subjective.

“Human life begins at conception”…Objective, scientific, truth.

 

[flyingfish]

“Human life begins at conception”…Objective, scientific, truth.

Okay, but the idea that all human organisms should have the right to life is completely subjective.

We may not have the technology today, but theoretically it should be possible to measure the presence of a mind just as it’s possible to identify the moment of conception.

 

[sanctamaria17]

This is not at all what I said, I don’t know if you’re deliberately misunderstanding or not. But sometimes I feel like no one bothers to read my posts before responding.

Personally I think should we have the technological sophistication to build artificial wombs, this tie would be largely broken since women would jump at the chance to have children without going through the hardships and risks of pregnancy. But that’s just an aside.

I am not saying that motherhood is bad, or that women should all have abortions or leave their babies to die of exposure. Ideally every pregnancy would be wanted and there would be no need for abortions save those situations where complications develop during a wanted pregnancy.

I’ve read your posts. But you’ve defined personhood as possessing a mind, which is defined by memory and you’ve said that maybe people die or lose personhood while they’re sleeping. Again, if a person isn’t conscious, you’ve said they’re not a person.

I do believe that pregnancies should be wanted. However, you have to make the choice to want it. You make a choice to accept a person, no matter what. That’s part of unconditional love. I believe we should make that choice no matter how a child comes. Your arguments are based on convenience. “OK, maybe it does have a mind, but…” “OK, maybe it’s biologically human but…” But there’s a slippery slope. If that’s your definition of personhood, could that be arbitrarily applied to someone in a vegetative state? Or someone who was developmentally delayed? That’s where those arguments lead to, that’s where they’ve ALL been leading to. Once we make it OK to terminate the life of a human entity at any stage of development, it becomes more acceptable to do likewise for other stages.

And, while you’re not saying women should have abortions or babies should be murdered, when you say things like, “I don’t think someone should be charged with murder because they killed a newborn, I think it should be theft or like killing a dog,” it’s going to horrify many people. Because they’re thinking of an innocent baby, one who may be smiling, laughing, one who tears at heartstrings when he/she cries. Pro-choice and pro-life people would be appalled to see such a killer get only six years of prison (roughly the amount you get for killing an animal) or hear him referred to as a "thief

We read your posts. It’s just that some of your definitions seem a bit, well, outside of the mainstream. My pro-choice friends don’t even know what to make of thoughts like that (some of my roommates saw me furrowing my brows at the computer and I showed them this conversation. All pro-choice and very socially liberal…they were also confused).

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

Just some observations;

This thread has, seemingly, been hijacked.

It seems, to me, that this to be a driving force behind hijacking a thread;

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with “unconventional” philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be “ways to communicate to everyone that you’re pretty smart,” he said.

weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2010/02/lse_study_liberalism_atheism_r.html

I hope this isn’t the case, here, but maybe it should be given some thought?

As always, just my thoughts

 

[flyingfish]

I’ve read your posts. But you’ve defined personhood as possessing a mind, which is defined by memory and you’ve said that maybe people die or lose personhood while they’re sleeping. Again, if a person isn’t conscious, you’ve said they’re not a person.

Right, I said that early on but later I recognized that this view has problems (namely that it would be okay to kill sleeping people) and I refined it to saying that personhood is possessing a brain capable of generating a mind.

I still wonder if I cease to exist every time I fall asleep, but I think the refined view is more consistent with my other beliefs (namely that it’s not okay to kill people who are sleeping or who have fainted).

If that’s your definition of personhood, could that be arbitrarily applied to someone in a vegetative state?

I understand vegetative state to be permanent brain death, in that case I don’t think it’s a person.

Or someone who was developmentally delayed?

No, because I’m not saying a mind has to be sophisticated, it just has to exist. I am guessing developmentally delayed means someone with autism or down’s? Those people still have minds.

We read your posts. It’s just that some of your definitions seem a bit, well, outside of the mainstream. My pro-choice friends don’t even know what to make of thoughts like that (some of my roommates saw me furrowing my brows at the computer and I showed them this conversation. All pro-choice and very socially liberal…they were also confused).

In my experience, it’s not uncommon to use the presence of consciousness to argue that abortion should be permissible. But you’re right, people generally don’t take the same reasoning and apply it to newborns. I do because to do otherwise would be inconsistent. I have absolutely no ill feeling towards newborns, when I see babies I smile and make faces at them and get all sorts of warm feelings, as is natural.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here is another good read.

Psychologists and pediatricians alike have been enthralled by the theory of infantile amnesia since it was first stated by Sigmund Freud in 1916. His popular observation that people rarely remember anything that happened to them before their second or third birthday turned a casual observation into a dogma of developmental psychology. It was further justified by theories of noted Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, about the limitations of newborn intelligence and its development in discreet stages. Tearing down the wall of illusion regarding infant memory has taken a cadre of dedicated researchers almost two generations and several dozen experiments. The death of Freud’s theory of “infantile amnesia” was accurately described by Carolyn Rovee-Collier (1996) when she called it a “misconception…an effort to explain a phenomenon that does not exist.”

References cited;

**For Further Study
**
Note: The chief architects in psychology of the demise of “infantile amnesia” have been Patricia Bauer, Carolyn Rovee-Collier, and Andrew Meltzoff. Some of their work and the work of other contributors are listed here to allow for historical study in greater detail.

Bauer, P. & Mandler, J. M. (1989), One thing follows another: Effects of temporal structure on 1- to 2-year-olds’ recall of events. Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 197-206.

Bauer, P. J. & Mandler, J. (1992), Putting the horse before the cart: The use of temporal order in recall of events by one-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 441-452.

Bauer, P. J. & Wewerka, S. S. (1995), One- to two-year-olds’ recall of events: The more expressed, the more impressed*. J. of Experimental Child Psychology*, 59(3), 475-496.

Bauer, P. J. (1996), What do infants recall of their lives? Memory for specific events by one- to two-year-olds, American Psychologist, 51(1), 29-41.

Drummey, A. B. & Newcombe, N. (1995), Remembering versus knowing the past: Children’s explicit and implicit memories for pictures. Journal Experimental Child Psychology, 59(3), 549-565

Hayne, H. & Findlay, N. (1995), Contextual control of memory retrieval in infancy: Evidence for associative priming. Infant Behavior and Development, 18, 195-207.

Hayne, H. & Rovee-Collier (1995), The organization of reactivated memory in infancy. Child Development, 66(3), 893-906.

Mandler, J. M. & McDonough, L. (1995), Long-term recall of event sequences in infancy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59(3), 457-474.

Mathison, L. (1981), Does your child remember? Mothering Magazine, Fall

Meltzoff, A. N. (1988), Imitation of televised models by infants. *Child Development, *59, 1221-1229.

Meltzoff, A. N. (1995), What infant memory tells us about infantile amnesia: Long-term recall and deferred imitation. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, *59(3), 497-515.

Meltzoff, A. N. & Gopnik, A. (1997), Words, Thoughts and Theories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rovee-Collier, C. & Fagan, J. (1981), The retrieval of memory in early infancy. In L. Lipsitt, (Ed.), *Advances in infancy research, volume 1. *Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rovee-Collier, C. & Lipsitt, L. (1982), Learning, adaptation, and memory in the newborn. In P. Stratton (Ed.) Psychobiology of the human newborn (pp. 147-190). New York: Wiley.

Rovee-Collier, C. (1987), Learning and memory in infancy. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), *Handbook of infant development (2nd ed.) *(pp. 98-148). New York: Wiley.

Rovee-Collier, C. & Hayne, H. (1987), Reactivation of infant memory: Implications for cognitive development. In H. Reese (Ed.), *Advances in Child Development and Behavior, *20, 185-238.

Rovee-Collier, C. (1989), The joy of kicking: Memories, motives, and mobiles. In Solomon and others (Eds.), Memory: Interdisciplinary approaches, 151-180. New York: Springer.

Rovee-Collier, C. (1996), Shifting the focus from what to why, *Infant Behavior and Development, *19(4), 385-400.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Not using feelings in this argument. I’m just making a statement that people will find it horrific, no matter if you’re the nicest person toward babies. There are a ton of legal ramifications, as well as societal ones, were such reasoning to take root in our legal system. Suffice it to say, most people at least consider a newborn a person, since it obviously can sustain life outside of his or her mother. Not only that, but babies do demonstrate personalities (at only a few weeks or days, moms say that their baby is a grumpy baby, an easy baby, etc). Not to mention, their vulnerability makes crimes against them especially heinous.

People will always see it as murder. Whether someone is careless with them or as callous as the Nazis to the millions of children they gassed, that’s how it will always be seen. And if someone hears their baby compared to a dog, a cat, or something less than human, they won’t care if you smile and make faces. Because when you don’t recognize humanity, it’s easier to justify a crime, even if this is not your intention.

 

[flyingfish]

Hiyas

Just some observations;

This thread has, seemingly, been hijacked.

It seems, to me, that this to be a driving force behind hijacking a thread;
weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2010/02/lse_study_liberalism_atheism_r.html

I hope this isn’t the case, here, but maybe it should be given some thought?

As always, just my thoughts

I guess it is convenient to dismiss another person’s point of view as them just trying to show off or appear smart. But be careful, because this cuts both ways. Conservative religious views are rarer in modern society than secularism and liberalism. Would you like it a liberal told you that you believe as you do just because you want to show off?

 

[flyingfish]

People will always see it as murder.

I wonder about this, not about the case of newborns, that I would probably agree with (although throughout history it wasn’t uncommon to leave newborns to die of exposure, ref. what happened in China with the killing of female babies).

I do think that most people when pressed would differentiate between the value of a fetus, a newborn, and an adult. Try asking your friends if they could only save 1 would they save:

a. newly fertilized embryo b. adult
a. first trimester fetus b. adult
a. third trimester fetus b. adult
a. newborn b. adult
a. 2 year old b. adult

etc.

 

[kimmielittle]

I guess it is convenient to dismiss another person’s point of view as them just trying to show off or appear smart. But be careful, because this cuts both ways. Conservative religious views are rarer in modern society than secularism and liberalism.

Hiyas

As I’ve stated before, Even if I were an Atheist …my moral convictions would remain the same. Humanity of humanity - isn’t predicated on religion, to me

Would you like it a liberal told you that you believe as you do just because you want to show off?

Well… I would question my motives / purpose. Then I would look at how I debated the issue.

In this instance, by your assessment, it seems to be a choice of murdering of innocent human life in the name of a Mothers’ rights. When in fact, there is a pro-choice stance in place. …abstention.

Pro-choicers IMHO try to sell women as some mindless cattle - unable to chose to abstain from sex.

We are talking about murder of human life - innocent human life…no sterilization. it’s human life. No reason exists to define it otherwise.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[flyingfish]

Pro-choicers IMHO try to sell women as some mindless cattle - unable to chose to abstain from sex.

Does it mean you think women who were raped can abort?

 

[kimmielittle]

Does it mean you think women who were raped can abort?

Show us the correlation of raped victims percentages ] as opposed to women who abort for convenience…another strawman, I fear .

 

[flyingfish]

Show us the correlation of raped victims percentages ] as opposed to women who abort for convenience…another strawman, I fear .

I don’t see why this matters, I’m not claiming that the majority of abortions are done by rape victims. I’m just pointing to a flaw in your argument, even if most women can consent to abstain, not all can.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t see why this matters, I’m not claiming that the majority of abortions are done by rape victims. I’m just pointing to a flaw in your argument, even if most women can consent to abstain, not all can.

Ah…but it’s you who tried to sell “The all women” as mindless cattle - unable to abstain.

You have held up to us - of your flawed logic, a major minority the woman who had eyesight problems - the raped ] as vindication to murder human life.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I wonder about this, not about the case of newborns, that I would probably agree with (although throughout history it wasn’t uncommon to leave newborns to die of exposure, ref. what happened in China with the killing of female babies).

I do think that most people when pressed would differentiate between the value of a fetus, a newborn, and an adult. Try asking your friends if they could only save 1 would they save:

a. newly fertilized embryo b. adult
a. first trimester fetus b. adult
a. third trimester fetus b. adult
a. newborn b. adult
a. 2 year old b. adult

etc.

Shouldn’t the hypothetical be “Who could you kill in order to not be inconvenienced?”

Your own newly fertilized embryo?
Your own first trimester fetus ?
Your own third trimester fetus ?
Your own newborn ?
Your own 2 year old?

Isn’t that discussion? The mother dislikes boys, that’s all that matters? Her likes and dislikes?

 

[flyingfish]

Ah…but it’s you who tried to sell “The all women” as mindless cattle - unable to abstain.

I don’t see where you’re getting this. Abstaining is too costly, sex is fun and cutting it out of one’s life is too high a price to pay. I’m not saying women are unable to abstain, I’m saying abstaining would lead to a too great reduction in one’s quality of life.

However, I would urge women using abortion as a back up to birth control to have their abortions in the first trimester, which is probably what happens anyway. I think enjoying sex is reason enough to possibly abort a first trimester fetus.

 

[flyingfish]

Shouldn’t the hypothetical be “Who could you kill in order to not be inconvenienced?”

Your own newly fertilized embryo?
Your own first trimester fetus ?
Your own third trimester fetus ?
Your own newborn ?
Your own 2 year old?

Isn’t that discussion? The mother dislikes boys, that’s all that matters? Her likes and dislikes?

Well, I set up that example to illustrate that people don’t believe that all humans are equal. I don’t think you think this either. If you had a newly fertilized egg and an adult human being and only one could live, and you had to choose which one, would you really flip a coin?

But the one you set up more accurately reflects abortion without health/life reasons.

 

[kimmielittle]

Shouldn’t the hypothetical be “Who could you kill in order to not be inconvenienced?”

Your own newly fertilized embryo?
Your own first trimester fetus ?
Your own third trimester fetus ?
Your own newborn ?
Your own 2 year old?

Isn’t that discussion? The mother dislikes boys, that’s all that matters? Her likes and dislikes?

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t see where you’re getting this. Abstaining is too costly, sex is fun and cutting it out of one’s life is too high a price to pay. I’m not saying women are unable to abstain, I’m saying abstaining would lead to a too great reduction in one’s quality of life.

However, I would urge women using abortion as a back up to birth control to have their abortions in the first trimester, which is probably what happens anyway. I think enjoying sex is reason enough to possibly abort a first trimester fetus.

Soooo…women are mindless cattle by this…

Abort now, for convenience of having sex

You just lost your logic’s credibility.
That is logic and it’s rules at work

 

[flyingfish]

Soooo…women are mindless cattle

Abort now, for convenience of having sex

You’re very hard to talk to, so don’t be upset if i no longer respond to your posts.