Any ex-pro-life staunchly pro-choicers out there?

[Mary_Gail_36]

Even if they were all babies, there is still the father’s interest to contend with, the children are his as well and he put resources into them. It is an offense against him to kill them. Potentially those children could have been adopted out.

I don’t see why you keep using 4, since I’ve already said that I personally have memories from when I was 2, and don’t agree with that number.

I don’t know what you want me to say, if none of them had consciousness and she killed the, I don’t think murder is an applicable charge. I don’t feel guilty or bad typing this. I really do believe it.

The unborn have fathers too, who legally have no rights in protecting their children.

The fact that infanticide is something you don’t consider murder really upsets me. I just can’t understand that pov. I’m a mom, and I think I’D fight a grizzly bear for my kids. I’D like to think I could do that for anyone’s child. Babies are innocent gifts from God. You really don’t see that?

 

[PaulinVA]

The eyesight of a person is far more valuable in my opinion than the continued existence of a lifeform that doesn’t even have a conscious mind.

I am at a loss for words.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I am at a loss for words.

Me too.

 

[Harmony1988]

The eyesight of a person is far more valuable in my opinion than the continued existence of a lifeform that doesn’t even have a conscious mind.

Well that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.

So far I haven’t seen much objectivity in your arguments though, you’ve made vague references to how you care about a person’s feelings etc. Had a stab in the dark in regards to personality/persons/consciousness at the embryonic level.

To say the least, much of your sentencing indicates you’ve not really had much experience in thinking about this kind of issue. Much of your arguments are based around assumptions which are derived largely from legal definitions, legal definitions are subjective

Such as “personality” - to an extent, every society in dealing with personality and persons would attribute it to a person outside the womb, and in some cases of law, it might mean an adult.

One of the questionable arguments you’ve brought up, or a part of it, was that abortion is OK since embryos are not persons. I immediately raise the point, who, and under what authority was there an establishment that abortion should be decided based on personality? Are there multiple establishments that decide this? How does this vary based on different establishments? How are we to decide which one is right?
Why does the argument revolve around that? Where did this aspect of personality come from? There are beings with no personality, do we get rid of them too?

Answering these questions will result in more questions, it’s really just looking at why are we making a decision over abortion based on varying laws of state and personal preference.

 

[stringbeanduck]

If the science does say that human self awareness begins at 2-4, then I think that killing anyone before such time is not murder.

It might still be a crime, for instance depriving the parents of the child they have invested time and effort into, but I would not equate it with the killing of a conscious person but more with the killing of an animal.

Wow. That’s just sad. Just sad is all I can say to think that people think that way. Not only is it imoral; it is illogical. Even Obama would probably consider it murder to kill a baby that born through 2 year old and beyond. With the exception of those born “accidently” during abortions.

 

[LilyM]

The unborn have fathers too, who legally have no rights in protecting their children.

The fact that infanticide is something you don’t consider murder really upsets me. I just can’t understand that pov. I’m a mom, and I think I’D fight a grizzly bear for my kids. I’D like to think I could do that for anyone’s child. Babies are innocent gifts from God. You really don’t see that?

Amen! Anyone who’s had children knows that they are PEOPLE even when newborn or toddlers - and that they have a right to life at that age regardless of all this ‘self-awareness’ cobblers.

 

[flyingfish]

I immediately raise the point, who, and under what authority was there an establishment that abortion should be decided based on personality? Are there multiple establishments that decide this? How does this vary based on different establishments? How are we to decide which one is right?
Why does the argument revolve around that? Where did this aspect of personality come from? There are beings with no personality, do we get rid of them too?

Answering these questions will result in more questions, it’s really just looking at why are we making a decision over abortion based on varying laws of state and personal preference.

The OP asked about how formerly pro-life people became pro-choice, so I gave him my reasons. Consciousness is what’s important to me, and what distinguishes people from rocks.

I am not claiming to be some ultimate authority on the subject, or even that you should believe as I do. I am merely stating what my values are and what logical conclusions flow from that.

I have to say though, I am surprised that no one agreed with me about the case of the woman who lost her eyesight because of pregnancy.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect between some pro-life positions and actions. For example, if you think that the unborn are truly persons, why aren’t you out there all the time fighting for them? Why aren’t you physically restraining abortion providers or women who have abortions to save lives? Why aren’t people who kill abortion providers praised as defenders of life? We certianly would have praised anyone who killed Hitler, had anyone managed to do so.

 

[Harmony1988]

The OP asked about how formerly pro-life people became pro-choice, so I gave him my reasons. Consciousness is what’s important to me, and what distinguishes people from rocks.

I am not claiming to be some ultimate authority on the subject, or even that you should believe as I do. I am merely stating what my values are and what logical conclusions flow from that.

Logical conclusions are the result of premises in arguments, not the result of values.

I don’t entirely care about your opinions per se, I question the reasoning behind it, if you haven’t worked that out already from me deconstructing most of it.

You state consciousness is what’s important to you, and what distinguishes people from rocks apparently. So does this mean it’s OK to kill someone if they are unconscious? Or do something to them until they become conscious again?

After all, using your reasoning, they are now like a rock. Which is actually quite a good description. What of people in comas? How about people who are asleep?

“# Consciousness is a word often used in everyday speech to describe being awake and aware – responsive to the environment, in contrast to being asleep or in a coma. …”

"# An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; “he lost consciousness”

I’m sorry mate, you don’t seem to sure of the definitions of the words that you hold so dearly as being the basis of your values and ultimate “logical conclusions” flowing from them], which is also incorrect to begin with as mentioned above.

 

[LilyM]

The OP asked about how formerly pro-life people became pro-choice, so I gave him my reasons. Consciousness is what’s important to me, and what distinguishes people from rocks.

I am not claiming to be some ultimate authority on the subject, or even that you should believe as I do. I am merely stating what my values are and what logical conclusions flow from that.

Consciousness does distinguish people from rocks, however it also distinguishes conscious people from unconscious people.

It’s ONE defining characteristic of personhood, certainly not the only or necessarily the most significant one. For all we know animals possess it, but we can’t communicate with them well enough to establish whether they do or not, at least as far as I am aware.

Nor is there any intelligible argument as to why it would be the one distinguishing characteristic (out of many that humans possess) the absence of which ceases to make a human a human.

It makes as much sense to me to say that because opposable thumbs are possessed by humans in contrast to every other species, someone who loses one or both thumbs is no longer human. Or that because humans build cities, as opposed to any other species, someone who lives outside of a city is no longer human.

 

[flyingfish]

You state consciousness is what’s important to you, and what distinguishes people from rocks apparently. So does this mean it’s OK to kill someone if they are unconsciousness? Or do something to them until they become conscious again?

After all, using your reasoning, they are now like a rock. Which is actually quite a good description. What of people in comas? How about people who are asleep?

I think sleep and coma are interesting considerations.

Personally I am not sure if I continue to exist when I fall asleep. Most of the time I think that “I” die every time I fall asleep, and that a new “me” is generated by my brain when I wake up.

If you kill someone in their sleep, are you killing a person? I’m not sure. I don’t know if the person is there anymore during sleep. But, there is an organism that generates a person for at least 16 hours of the day, and destroying the organism will prevent that. I personally think it’s wrong, and is a different case from destroying an organism that has never generated a person.

I commented earlier that I am no expert on comas, some comas could perhaps be treated like sleep, in other cases it is clear that the brain of the person has been damaged to the point where there will never be a person generated by that brain. In that case I think it’s fine to end the life.

 

[stringbeanduck]

The OP asked about how formerly pro-life people became pro-choice, so I gave him my reasons. Consciousness is what’s important to me, and what distinguishes people from rocks.

I am not claiming to be some ultimate authority on the subject, or even that you should believe as I do. I am merely stating what my values are and what logical conclusions flow from that.

I have to say though, I am surprised that no one agreed with me about the case of the woman who lost her eyesight because of pregnancy.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect between some pro-life positions and actions. For example, if you think that the unborn are truly persons, why aren’t you out there all the time fighting for them? Why aren’t you physically restraining abortion providers or women who have abortions to save lives? Why aren’t people who kill abortion providers praised as defenders of life? We certianly would have praised anyone who killed Hitler, had anyone managed to do so.

Believe me, if I could physically stop them, I would but that would land me in jail, which would prevent me from praying outside in front of clinic and prevent me from continueing other methods which carry success. Though I’m not totally against the idea of hand cuffing me and friend to the door to make a statement. It’s about weighing what is going to be more affective. Solving murder with murder? No, God wants us to win this war with peace, not fighting fire with fire.

 

[Harmony1988]

I think sleep and coma are interesting considerations.

Personally I am not sure if I continue to exist when I fall asleep. Most of the time I think that “I” die every time I fall asleep, and that a new “me” is generated by my brain when I wake up.

Don’t think you’re being smart by being sarcastic. It’s not my fault if you can’t expand on your initial points so that people come and decimate it later, if you don’t believe me, look at LilyM’s post just below mine, she picked up on the same thing.

If you kill someone in their sleep, are you killing a person? I’m not sure. I don’t know if the person is there anymore during sleep. But, there is an organism that generates a person for at least 16 hours of the day, and destroying the organism will prevent that. I personally think it’s wrong, and is a different case from destroying an organism that has never generated a person.

Class clown eh?

I commented earlier that I am no expert on comas, some comas could perhaps be treated like sleep, in other cases it is clear that the brain of the person has been damaged to the point where there will never be a person generated by that brain. In that case I think it’s fine to end the life.

Good, you took the bait:

Title: Man says emergence from coma like “rebirth”:

msnbc.msn.com/id/34109227/ns/health-more_health_news/?gt1=43001

He was in a “coma”, but heard everything for 23 years, it was not until technology developed further that they could communicate with him. For we find out that some people aren’t truly in a coma, but they might seem that way. What if we find out something more interesting in another 10 years. Throw up our hands and say oops, my mistake?

 

[flyingfish]

Don’t think you’re being smart by being sarcastic. It’s not my fault if you can’t expand on your initial points so that people come and decimate it later, if you don’t believe me, look at LilyM’s post just below mine, she picked up on the same thing.

Class clown eh?

Actually, I have thought about this for a long time, and I truly do believe that I cease to exist every time I fall asleep. In fact, I think I cease to exist from instant of time to instant of time, and a new, nearly identical “I”, is created by my brain. I don’t think that personhood, or consciousness is continuous. If you think I’m lying to you, not much I can do to convince you I’m telling the truth that this is what I really think.

He was in a coma, but heard everything for 23 years, it was not until technology developed further that they could communicate with him.

Not all “comas” are the save. Terry Shiavo for example was brain dead, they did an autopsy on her following her death that confirmed it. She was never going to wake up.

And I already told you that I am not sure how to treat sleep/temporary unconsciousness.

I don’t think it’s anything like the situation of the fetus though. On the one hand you have an organism capable of generating consciousness, on the other you don’t.

 

[Luke_K]

Why aren’t people who kill abortion providers praised as defenders of life? We certianly would have praised anyone who killed Hitler, had anyone managed to do so.

No true pro-lifer would have praised the killing of Hitler if it were realistically possible to stop him by non-lethal means. His life had value, too.

 

[Harmony1988]

Actually, I have thought about this for a long time, and I truly do believe that I cease to exist every time I fall asleep. In fact, I think I cease to exist from instant of time to instant of time, and a new, nearly identical “I”, is created by my brain. I don’t think that personhood, or consciousness is continuous. If you think I’m lying to you, not much I can do to convince you I’m telling the truth that this is what I really think.

As I said earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion. But here ends the debate, as this is akin to the flat earth vs the rest of the world.

Cheers

Not all “comas” are the save. Terry Shiavo for example was brain dead, they did an autopsy on her following her death that confirmed it. She was never going to wake up.

It would help if you read the article so you wouldn’t be meandering into dark areas without a flashlight.

And I already told you that I am not sure how to treat sleep/temporary unconsciousness.

I never asked you to treat it, I was bring points to light that either invalidates your arguments, or gives you something to look into further.

I don’t think it’s anything like the situation of the fetus though. On the one hand you have an organism capable of generating consciousness, on the other you don’t.

You’re the one who brought it up mate. So decide how you’re going to continue the argument for your case in point.

Anyways I’m off, good luck.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Note: Terri Schiavo was not brain dead. She breathed on her own without the aid of a ventilator. She had brain damage…not brain death. Had she been brain dead, there would not have been any controversy.

 

[flyingfish]

It would help if you read the article so you wouldn’t be meandering into dark areas without a flashlight.

If I wanted to read articles about comas, I would search for them and read them. If you think there are relevant points in the article, please summarize them.

You’re the one who brought it up mate. So decide how you’re going to continue the argument for your case in point.

My argument remains the same, personhood comes down to whether the organism is capable of producing conscious thought. This view would include those who are asleep, as well as those who are temporarily unconscious for other reasons.

It would not include any living thing that is incapable of producing a conscious mind.

If a body is severely damaged and cannot generate a mind (or if it has not grown to the point where it can as the case of a fetus), it’s not a person. If it’s possible to repair it so that it can once again generate a mind, it will become a person once it is repaired.

Edit: I looked through the article, and I remember reading about this case before. It is questionable whether the man is alive because “facilitated communication” is itself questionable.

“That’s called ‘facilitated communication,’” Caplan said. “That is ouija board stuff. It’s been discredited time and time again. When people look at it, it’s usually the person doing the pointing who’s doing the messages, not the person they claim they are helping.”

Not that it’s relevant to the discussion, since conceivably there might well be people we say are unconscious who actually are.

 

[LilyM]

Have you even thought for a millisecond about what you’re saying? Personhood depends on continuity of memory and (name removed by moderator)ut. You’re envisaging a process whereby a person’s consciousness is recreated for them by their brain every morning when they wake up, in a process equivalent to their body being cloned (a perfect copy generated) from a single cell.

Except that a clone ISN’T the same thing as the original - it’s a perfect copy, to be sure, but still not the same thing. Dolly the sheep wasn’t the same sheep as the sheep of which she was a clone.

So if your consciousness - meaning some combination of memories, thoughts, feelings and whatnot - were somehow ‘regenerated’ each morning they also wouldn’t be original, they’d be reproductions.

In effect you’d have within you a facsimile copy of the mental attributes of the person who existed when your body lost consciousness. You wouldn’t be the same person as a result, any more than a print of the Mona Lisa is the same as the original painting, let alone the original person who sat for it. Or any more than you would be if it was your body that died each night and was regenerated from a strand of your DNA each morning.

Your body doesn’t regenerate your conscious mind each day - a body is a physical entity that can only generate physical things (blood, tissue, nerve cells, bone cells, physical sensations such as bodily pain or pleasure and physical reactions to emotional stimuli, for example crying, blushing etc). The body cannot create non-physical things such as consciousness…

 

[flyingfish]

You wouldn’t be the same person at all., you’d just have a copy of their mental attributes, the originals of which were lost when they lost consciousness.

I don’t think that the me that wakes up is the same me that went to sleep. I think it’s nearly identical because brain conditions probably didn’t change significantly during sleep, but not quite identical, because the brain did change.

I also included brain in the body, I think the mind is created by the brain.

 

[Abu]

No ballyhoo can evade the facts:
We, as conscious and desiring agents, do not “have” organisms that we possess and use; we are rational organisms. The persons we are come into being precisely as and when the organisms we are come into being. We are essentially human, physical organisms — not some mere consciousness living in and using a human body — so all human beings are “persons” whose rights deserve respect and protection: embryonic human beings, retarded human beings, frail, deranged and dying human beings.