Planned Parenthood videos

[Jenksismyhero]

1) Regarding PP, while they might not be harvesting/farming fetuses like a factory, the problem I have, if it's true they're selling this stuff for profit, is that in every sense that gives them motivation to push for more abortions. More abortions = more money = continued funding. Those videos might be all lies and bulls***, but it's still just bad PR for reps of PP to discuss sales like that, as if they're a commodity. Also, even if the videos are all spliced up, the manner in which the one lady is talking (I only watched the one video) doesn't make it seem like she's just wanting to recoup the costs of the procedure. She was negotiating. If she wanted to recoup costs she would have said "well, it costs us X, so that's what we'd be willing to sell them for. After all, we don't want to make a profit!"

 

2) Regarding abortion, I am against it in all forms except for cases of rape, incest and health and it has nothing to do with religion. To me it's just the right/wrong of it. The morning after pill i'm fine with. Even up to a few weeks later i'm ok with it. But early on, much earlier than most people think, actual organs are formed. Life is formed. I don't care about survivability outside of the womb. I don't care about not being conscious. When you start to have a heartbeat and electrical impulses, it's not just a random mass of cells. That, to me, is life.

 

In high school and college I took the utilitarian approach: Hey, keep these babies around and think of the cost! But as I grew older, as I experienced my wife being pregnant and giving birth to our son, as I experienced friends of mine suffer for years to have children, as I experienced friends who just didn't want to have a kid yet go through with an abortion because it wasn't convenient for them to do so ("I haven't traveled much yet!"), the more and more I grew to really hate the practice. Having a kid is, quite literally, a miracle. So much has to go right. So much can go wrong. Seems like such a terrible practice if that miracle can actually happen.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

2) Regarding abortion, I am against it in all forms except for cases of rape, incest and health and it has nothing to do with religion. To me it's just the right/wrong of it.

 

Rape/incest exceptions are the most baffling thing to me. If you oppose abortion because it kills a valuable life, then the method by which that life was formed (rape/invest vs consensual sex) is irrelevant. The position boils down to enforcing personal responsibility via pregnancy as a punishment. You got raped? Okay, that's not your fault, you can have an abortion. You had sex? Well, you should be stuck with that baby because you screwed up!

 

The morning after pill i'm fine with. Even up to a few weeks later i'm ok with it. But early on, much earlier than most people think, actual organs are formed. Life is formed. I don't care about survivability outside of the womb. I don't care about not being conscious. When you start to have a heartbeat and electrical impulses, it's not just a random mass of cells. That, to me, is life.

 

I don't understand this either. What makes a heartbeat an important moral dividing line?

 

Having a kid is, quite literally, a miracle.

 

It quite literally is not. Miracles are inexplicable, births are not.

[JPN366]

1) Regarding PP, while they might not be harvesting/farming fetuses like a factory, the problem I have, if it's true they're selling this stuff for profit, is that in every sense that gives them motivation to push for more abortions. More abortions = more money = continued funding. Those videos might be all lies and bulls***, but it's still just bad PR for reps of PP to discuss sales like that, as if they're a commodity. Also, even if the videos are all spliced up, the manner in which the one lady is talking (I only watched the one video) doesn't make it seem like she's just wanting to recoup the costs of the procedure. She was negotiating. If she wanted to recoup costs she would have said "well, it costs us X, so that's what we'd be willing to sell them for. After all, we don't want to make a profit!"

 

2) Regarding abortion, I am against it in all forms except for cases of rape, incest and health and it has nothing to do with religion. To me it's just the right/wrong of it. The morning after pill i'm fine with. Even up to a few weeks later i'm ok with it. But early on, much earlier than most people think, actual organs are formed. Life is formed. I don't care about survivability outside of the womb. I don't care about not being conscious. When you start to have a heartbeat and electrical impulses, it's not just a random mass of cells. That, to me, is life.

 

In high school and college I took the utilitarian approach: Hey, keep these babies around and think of the cost! But as I grew older, as I experienced my wife being pregnant and giving birth to our son, as I experienced friends of mine suffer for years to have children, as I experienced friends who just didn't want to have a kid yet go through with an abortion because it wasn't convenient for them to do so ("I haven't traveled much yet!"), the more and more I grew to really hate the practice. Having a kid is, quite literally, a miracle. So much has to go right. So much can go wrong. Seems like such a terrible practice if that miracle can actually happen.

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

My wife had two miscarriages and it's heartbreaking not only for her, but me as well.

[StrangeSox]

1) Regarding PP, while they might not be harvesting/farming fetuses like a factory, the problem I have, if it's true they're selling this stuff for profit,

 

They're not and there's zero evidence, anywhere, that they are.

 

is that in every sense that gives them motivation to push for more abortions. More abortions = more money = continued funding.

 

What does it even mean for PP to "push for more abortions?" How many abortions that they perform do you think end up with donated fetal tissue?

 

Those videos might be all lies and bulls***,

 

They are.

 

but it's still just bad PR for reps of PP to discuss sales like that, as if they're a commodity.

 

How should professionals discuss it? How do you imagine discussions with hospital administrators for parts from organ donors go?

 

Also, even if the videos are all spliced up, the manner in which the one lady is talking (I only watched the one video) doesn't make it seem like she's just wanting to recoup the costs of the procedure. She was negotiating. If she wanted to recoup costs she would have said "well, it costs us X, so that's what we'd be willing to sell them for. After all, we don't want to make a profit!"

 

She said that she wasn't sure what the costs were and would have to check. She threw out an estimate of $75, and the activists kept trying to pressure her to take more.

 

But early on, much earlier than most people think, actual organs are formed.

 

What is your basis for assuming that most people don't understand fetal development?

[Jenksismyhero]

Rape/incest exceptions are the most baffling thing to me. If you oppose abortion because it kills a valuable life, then the method by which that life was formed (rape/invest vs consensual sex) is irrelevant. The position boils down to enforcing personal responsibility via pregnancy as a punishment. You got raped? Okay, that's not your fault, you can have an abortion. You had sex? Well, you should be stuck with that baby because you screwed up!

 

So murder in pure self defense is still inexcusable? Morals don't have to be 100% consistent. There can be exceptions. I still don't LIKE it, but I think it's worse to force the mother to go through with the pregnancy given that situation, or you know, die because of it.

 

I don't understand this either. What makes a heartbeat an important moral dividing line?

 

A universal sign of life? Are you one of those people who don't think life exists until they're out of the womb?

 

It quite literally is not. Miracles are inexplicable, births are not.

 

Go through the process, have some friends/family spend fortunes on it, read/watch some horror stories. Then report back.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

What is your basis for assuming that most people don't understand fetal development?

 

I'm basing it on prior arguments I've had on the topic with a wide variety of people, many of whom have strong pro-choice opinions but know little to nothing about pregnancy and fetal development. Especially "younger" people.

[Jenksismyhero]

What does it even mean for PP to "push for more abortions?" How many abortions that they perform do you think end up with donated fetal tissue?

 

Sort of like how doctors like to push for more serious surgeries/procedures because they get paid more for them than for conservative care. We know that happens, a lot. Again, hypothetically, if PP is making it a for-profit system, which I acknowledge you deny and there seems to be little evidence of (I have not really followed the story closely), then I would have an issue with that. I could see an overzealous PP manager pushing for abortions to get more money. Not saying it happens, just saying I can see an issue there.

 

How should professionals discuss it? How do you imagine discussions with hospital administrators for parts from organ donors go?

 

She said that she wasn't sure what the costs were and would have to check. She threw out an estimate of $75, and the activists kept trying to pressure her to take more.

 

She could have easily stopped talking about it. Why are you even discussing that outside of an official meeting in a conference room when you have all the facts/figures in hand? And again, she never once said covering costs or recouping costs, at least that I can remember. The whole thing seemed off to me. She was playing along with him.

[StrangeSox]

Sort of like how doctors like to push for more serious surgeries/procedures because they get paid more for them than for conservative care. We know that happens, a lot. Again, hypothetically, if PP is making it a for-profit system, which I acknowledge you deny and there seems to be little evidence of (I have not really followed the story closely), then I would have an issue with that. I could see an overzealous PP manager pushing for abortions to get more money. Not saying it happens, just saying I can see an issue there.

 

Abortions already represent a small fraction of the services that PP provides, and abortions when the pregnancy is far enough along to result in usable fetal tissues even less so. And exactly how much money do you think PP would be making on $75 or even the $100 the activists tried to push her to take? How many fetal tissue samples do they even process?

 

She could have easily stopped talking about it. Why are you even discussing that outside of an official meeting in a conference room when you have all the facts/figures in hand? And again, she never once said covering costs or recouping costs, at least that I can remember. The whole thing seemed off to me. She was playing along with him.

 

She was meeting with a supposed biotech group to discuss fetal tissue donations for research purposes. I don't see anything wrong with discussing that in an open manner in some initial meetings. She did state, repeatedly, that they do not profit from this and that they only recover the expenses they incur.

 

If you only watched the shorter video, then you watched the one where the activists edited it to deliberately lie to you and give you exactly that misleading impression.

[CrimsonWeltall]

So murder in pure self defense is still inexcusable? Morals don't have to be 100% consistent. There can be exceptions.

 

Killing in self defense isn't murder. And this isn't the topic.

 

Your rape and incest exceptions don't make much sense. If your concern is protecting the unborn, then why would the method of conception matter?

 

I still don't LIKE it, but I think it's worse to force the mother to go through with the pregnancy given that situation

 

Ok, this is a little more helpful. To clarify: the mental anguish of giving birth to a product of rape/incest is sufficient to tip the scales from prioritizing the unborn's life to prioritizing the woman's feelings/desires?

 

, or you know, die because of it.

 

My comment was only about rape and incest, not cases involving medical issues.

 

A universal sign of life? Are you one of those people who don't think life exists until they're out of the womb?

 

A zygote is universally recognized as a living organism. That's long before any heartbeat exists. (As a side note, there are organisms with no hearts at all that are still alive as well).

 

Life is in continuity throughout the entire process. I would distinguish meaningful life that is capable of experience versus that which cannot. I draw the line when the capability for consciousness and higher brain function are obtained.

 

If I asked you why kicking a dog was wrong, I imagine your answer would involve something about how it affects the dog's living experience - it will feel pain, it will be afraid, etc. You wouldn't say it was because the dog had a heartbeat.

 

Go through the process, have some friends/family spend fortunes on it, read/watch some horror stories. Then report back.

 

Going through the process has nothing to do with your incorrect usage of a word. I'm well acquainted with people who have had difficulty having kids and horror stories. I know a woman who has had 5+ miscarriages, and my fiance is a Labor & Delivery nurse who has experienced all sorts of awful things from stillbirths to terrible genetic disorders. Children being precious and children being a miracle are two different things.

[Jenksismyhero]

Abortions already represent a small fraction of the services that PP provides, and abortions when the pregnancy is far enough along to result in usable fetal tissues even less so. And exactly how much money do you think PP would be making on $75 or even the $100 the activists tried to push her to take? How many fetal tissue samples do they even process?

 

If it's a dollar it's a dollar too much. And as Alpha said earlier, also illegal.

 

She was meeting with a supposed biotech group to discuss fetal tissue donations for research purposes. I don't see anything wrong with discussing that in an open manner in some initial meetings. She did state, repeatedly, that they do not profit from this and that they only recover the expenses they incur.

 

If you only watched the shorter video, then you watched the one where the activists edited it to deliberately lie to you and give you exactly that misleading impression.

 

She said that while nervously laughing or smiling though, which made it all the more suspicious to me when I watched it. I'm not discounting that the whole video was edited on purpose. But I saw enough of a string of conversation that wasn't edited to see that.

[StrangeSox]

If it's a dollar it's a dollar too much. And as Alpha said earlier, also illegal.

I was questioning your hypothetical "PP would push for more abortions so that they could get all the money." The financial incentive isn't really there, even if we assume that multiple PP affiliates (it's not a centralized, top-down organization really) across the country would be willing to commit felonies routinely and would discuss them with some small, previously unheard of biotech group.

 

She said that while nervously laughing or smiling though, which made it all the more suspicious to me when I watched it. I'm not discounting that the whole video was edited on purpose. But I saw enough of a string of conversation that wasn't edited to see that.

Maybe she was made uncomfortable by these activists who were trying to push her to agree to illegal actions? Either way, she was crystal-clear that they only recover costs and do not profit from facilitating fetal tissue donations.

[Y2HH]

In high school and college I took the utilitarian approach: Hey, keep these babies around and think of the cost! But as I grew older, as I experienced my wife being pregnant and giving birth to our son, as I experienced friends of mine suffer for years to have children, as I experienced friends who just didn't want to have a kid yet go through with an abortion because it wasn't convenient for them to do so ("I haven't traveled much yet!"), the more and more I grew to really hate the practice. Having a kid is, quite literally, a miracle. So much has to go right. So much can go wrong. Seems like such a terrible practice if that miracle can actually happen.

 

I went through a very similar and expensive experience when we were trying to have our first child -- we now have two -- but for over year we were convinced it wasn't going to happen.

 

THAT being said...we WANTED a kid/kids...we aren't talking about people that want them. These kids will undoubtedly end up growing up in a broken family or an even more broken foster system, leading to broken lives. Everyone just loves to assume the baby will be given over to adoption and grow up happy, but more often than not, this isn't what's happening. The child is born into terrible circumstances to parents that don't want it, it get's neglected and lives a s*** life...all because they're forced to do so?

 

I find that insane, and unfair...I'm for abortion for all the reasons you gloss over in your little miracle speech here. Giving birth isn't hard, or we wouldn't still be here...and while it may be a miracle for some couples, for other's it's a burden they don't want, nor should we force them too...and telling them to just not have sex is ignoring the science behind countless thousands of years of evolution telling them the exact opposite.

[Soxfest]

Tax payer money for PP should end...............get donations like everyone else.

[Jenksismyhero]

Killing in self defense isn't murder. And this isn't the topic.

 

Your rape and incest exceptions don't make much sense. If your concern is protecting the unborn, then why would the method of conception matter?

 

Technically it is, but we've provided an exception under are laws for self defense. Hence the analogy I was making. We make exceptions to moral questions all the time and it's still acceptable.

 

 

Ok, this is a little more helpful. To clarify: the mental anguish of giving birth to a product of rape/incest is sufficient to tip the scales from prioritizing the unborn's life to prioritizing the woman's feelings/desires?

 

Correct.

 

 

A zygote is universally recognized as a living organism. That's long before any heartbeat exists. (As a side note, there are organisms with no hearts at all that are still alive as well).

 

Life is in continuity throughout the entire process. I would distinguish meaningful life that is capable of experience versus that which cannot. I draw the line when the capability for consciousness and higher brain function are obtained.

 

See those are too arbitrary for me. Heart function, for humans, is the life or death ingredient, right? Why not just start there?

 

If I asked you why kicking a dog was wrong, I imagine your answer would involve something about how it affects the dog's living experience - it will feel pain, it will be afraid, etc. You wouldn't say it was because the dog had a heartbeat.

 

If you stomped on a beautiful flower I would say it was wrong and it has nothing to do with pain or signs of life. There's something I consider to be a living being that is being ruined or harmed in some way.

 

Going through the process has nothing to do with your incorrect usage of a word. I'm well acquainted with people who have had difficulty having kids and horror stories. I know a woman who has had 5+ miscarriages, and my fiance is a Labor & Delivery nurse who has experienced all sorts of awful things from stillbirths to terrible genetic disorders. Children being precious and children being a miracle are two different things.

 

There are multiple definitions of miracle. I'm not saying it's based on some unexampled, unknowable divine act. It's a wonder. A marvel. An outstanding, extraordinary event. And it's not just the child, it's the whole process.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

There are multiple definitions of miracle. I'm not saying it's based on some unexampled, unknowable divine act. It's a wonder. A marvel. An outstanding, extraordinary event. And it's not just the child, it's the whole process.

 

I think Crimson's getting a little hung up on the definition of miracle here, but you did say "literally." It's not supernatural, and it's not improbable (generally speaking, of course) or uncommon.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Technically it is, but we've provided an exception under are laws for self defense. Hence the analogy I was making. We make exceptions to moral questions all the time and it's still acceptable.

 

Murder is illegal by definition. Killing someone in self defense is not. I don't think it's accurate to say self-defense is an exception as much as it is a nuance.

 

Correct.

 

Hmmm. Would you say the scales are fairly close to even for you before that factor then? I think most pro-life people would say that the unborn's life is vastly more important than the woman's feelings/desires.

 

See those are too arbitrary for me. Heart function, for humans, is the life or death ingredient, right? Why not just start there?

 

What's arbitrary about distinguishing life forms which have the ability to experience things and life forms which do not? We do that all the time.

 

The liver, lungs, and brain are also required ingredients. Why choose the heart specifically?

 

If you stomped on a beautiful flower I would say it was wrong and it has nothing to do with pain or signs of life. There's something I consider to be a living being that is being ruined or harmed in some way.

 

You can't see it, but I'm making a very skeptical face. You'd consider killing a flower to be morally wrong? If it's just about a living thing being harmed, then you'd also have to object to me spraying Weed-B-Gon on my lawn, or taking antibiotics.

 

If it has nothing to do with pain or experience, then stomping on a dog is no worse than stomping on a flower, which I have a hard time believing you think is true.

Edited August 17, 2015 by CrimsonWeltall

[CrimsonWeltall]

I think Crimson's getting a little hung up on the definition of miracle here, but you did say "literally." It's not supernatural, and it's not improbable (generally speaking, of course) or uncommon.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't have nitpicked if not for the word "literally". I'm dropping it though.

[Jake]

I think a lot of this is coming in light of the story that PP story and he says there is a difference in using tissue donated that wasn't "harvested" for that specific purpose vs tissue that exists and it's better to perform research it than to throw it away.

 

Also, he didn't conduct the entire study we are all talking about, many people were involved and I think he's being credited with things he didn't actually perform in that experiment simply because it helps paint the picture of him the media wanted. I believe his claim is that, just because my name is on a study doesn't mean I carried out every action taken during that study.

 

Also, I don't care about Ben Carson, but I believe this is why.

 

Ethically speaking, scientists are expected to only allow their name to be listed as author of a publication if they are prepared to stand by its findings, etc. That doesn't mean they're signing a pledge to never change their mind about any conclusions or anything like that, but it does mean you are telling the world that you made important intellectual and substantive contributions to the piece and are responsible for the end product. Some fields do play pretty fast and loose in terms of what constitutes a large enough contribution, though.

[Jenksismyhero]

Murder is illegal by definition. Killing someone in self defense is not. I don't think it's accurate to say self-defense is an exception as much as it is a nuance.

 

But we start from a basic premise that taking the life of another human is morally wrong EXCEPT in situations a, b and c. I'm saying abortions are wrong except in situations a, b and c. Context can excuse the underlying moral wrong.

 

Hmmm. Would you say the scales are fairly close to even for you before that factor then? I think most pro-life people would say that the unborn's life is vastly more important than the woman's feelings/desires.

 

I mean, I dunno about close. I've always thought it was a terrible practice that really should be avoided, especially when it's done just because you don't want to deal with it. But yeah, i'm closer to 50/50 on it than 90/10 if that's what you're asking.

 

What's arbitrary about distinguishing life forms which have the ability to experience things and life forms which do not? We do that all the time.

 

The liver, lungs, and brain are also required ingredients. Why choose the heart specifically?

 

What do you mean by "ability to experience things?" When does that occur? Can you give a specific week or stage of development? Really if you want to nitpick i'd argue a 3 month old doesn't "experience things."

 

I have no scientific basis here. Obviously this is just my opinion. But heart function is the general go to when deciding whether a human is alive or not. Brain function is too, but that's way more complex to analyze and we really don't have the capability to do that yet.

 

You can't see it, but I'm making a very skeptical face. You'd consider killing a flower to be morally wrong? If it's just about a living thing being harmed, then you'd also have to object to me spraying Weed-B-Gon on my lawn, or taking antibiotics.

 

Sure, albeit on an incredibly small scale. With weeds there's a factor (aesthetics) that overrides the moral wrong.

 

If it has nothing to do with pain or experience, then stomping on a dog is no worse than stomping on a flower, which I have a hard time believing you think is true.

 

Actions can't be more wrong than other wrongs?

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

But we start from a basic premise that taking the life of another human is morally wrong EXCEPT in situations a, b and c.

Except when there's a gun involved...

 

I'll let myself out now.

[Jenksismyhero]

Except when there's a gun involved...

 

I'll let myself out now.

 

People argue that all deaths involving guns are justified? News to me.

[CrimsonWeltall]

But we start from a basic premise that taking the life of another human is morally wrong EXCEPT in situations a, b and c. I'm saying abortions are wrong except in situations a, b and c. Context can excuse the underlying moral wrong.

 

Ok. Fair enough. I don't want to get hung up on semantics about the word "exception".

 

I mean, I dunno about close. I've always thought it was a terrible practice that really should be avoided, especially when it's done just because you don't want to deal with it. But yeah, i'm closer to 50/50 on it than 90/10 if that's what you're asking.

 

Yes, that was my question. BTW, my questions aren't an attempt at a 'gotcha', I'm just trying to understand your position.

 

You've said that there's a point in development (heartbeat) where your weights between prioritizing the unborn's life and the woman's feelings/desires shifts from being strongly towards the woman (let's say 90/10 woman), to slightly favoring the unborn (let's say 60/40 child). That slight favoring can be offset by rape/incest cases. Now, I presume there is some point in development where you'd be damn near 100/0 child. If a woman is at 40 weeks in labor, you're not going to support an abortion even if she was raped. Heck, maybe even a newborn works for this example. If this is correct, what are the factors involved that moves you from 60/40 child to 100/0 child?

 

 

What do you mean by "ability to experience things?" When does that occur? Can you give a specific week or stage of development? Really if you want to nitpick i'd argue a 3 month old doesn't "experience things."

 

A 3 month old certainly experiences things. They see/hear/feel/smell/taste, they can feel pain, they have emotions, they have memory, they have relationships, etc.

 

I have no scientific basis here. Obviously this is just my opinion. But heart function is the general go to when deciding whether a human is alive or not. Brain function is too, but that's way more complex to analyze and we really don't have the capability to do that yet.

 

I don't think death can be reduced to heart function. For example, if your heart stops, but gets restarted due to CPR, is that someone coming back from the dead? I wouldn't consider it to be. I think a person is dead when they've been damaged to the point of being *irretrievably* gone. Generally, this would be brain death. I would also consider anyone with sufficient brain damage to the point where the person itself is gone (eg Teri Schaivo) to be 'dead' from a moral perspective even though her body was alive.

 

Sure, albeit on an incredibly small scale. With weeds there's a factor (aesthetics) that overrides the moral wrong.

 

That's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? It would seem to follow that killing an attractive person would be (ever so slightly) more morally objectionable than killing an ugly one.

 

Actions can't be more wrong than other wrongs?

 

Of course, but you said your opinion had "nothing" to do with pain or experience. That was the operative difference in my question: the dog has it, the flower does not.

 

Thanks for answer my questions. The best moral discussions involve finding common ground and understanding where the other person is coming from.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, that was my question. BTW, my questions aren't an attempt at a 'gotcha', I'm just trying to understand your position.

 

You've said that there's a point in development (heartbeat) where your weights between prioritizing the unborn's life and the woman's feelings/desires shifts from being strongly towards the woman (let's say 90/10 woman), to slightly favoring the unborn (let's say 60/40 child). That slight favoring can be offset by rape/incest cases. Now, I presume there is some point in development where you'd be damn near 100/0 child. If a woman is at 40 weeks in labor, you're not going to support an abortion even if she was raped. Heck, maybe even a newborn works for this example. If this is correct, what are the factors involved that moves you from 60/40 child to 100/0 child?

 

How far along in development certainly. I mean, by the end of the embryonic stage, you basically have all the major structures and organs formed and developing. You have a heartbeat, brain activity, etc. How is that not a life even if it's still forming into shape?

 

 

A 3 month old certainly experiences things. They see/hear/feel/smell/taste, they can feel pain, they have emotions, they have memory, they have relationships, etc.

 

Other than memory (although that's arguable), an unborn baby has those same experiences in utero. Obviously it doesn't happen until it has the body parts to do that, but it happens. For example they "find" their hands/feet, they start sucking motions, etc. Those are all experiences that serve them later.

 

I don't think death can be reduced to heart function. For example, if your heart stops, but gets restarted due to CPR, is that someone coming back from the dead? I wouldn't consider it to be. I think a person is dead when they've been damaged to the point of being *irretrievably* gone. Generally, this would be brain death. I would also consider anyone with sufficient brain damage to the point where the person itself is gone (eg Teri Schaivo) to be 'dead' from a moral perspective even though her body was alive.

 

I don't disagree, and I think medically death is considered the lack of heart/lung function or lack of brain activity. But I guess I view it like a car - if the engine dies you may still have some battery power running the radio, but it's not going to last long. If there's no heartbeat, you're not living for very long, so you are irretrievably gone (absent outside assistance).

 

 

That's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? It would seem to follow that killing an attractive person would be (ever so slightly) more morally objectionable than killing an ugly one.

 

By aesthetics i'm meaning even more than just whether something is pretty or not. Think about what goes along with that - personal feelings (embarrassment, resentment from neighbors), financial considerations (a weed infested yard won't sell for as much), etc. I'm just saying while we can all have a baseline of what's morally wrong, there are other factors involved that will make certain actions more or less morally wrong.

 

I'm not sure attractiveness would be on my list of factors, but it might. Others like age or potential in life are going to weigh more heavily in comparing the deaths of two people.

 

Of course, but you said your opinion had "nothing" to do with pain or experience. That was the operative difference in my question: the dog has it, the flower does not.

 

It doesn't from the sense that I find both acts wrong. Pain is a factor that is going to significantly increase how wrong I think X action is, though.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[CrimsonWeltall]

How far along in development certainly. I mean, by the end of the embryonic stage, you basically have all the major structures and organs formed and developing. You have a heartbeat, brain activity, etc. How is that not a life even if it's still forming into shape?

 

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it's a life the entire time. A fertilized egg is a life. It just isn't one I value the same as I'd value other human lives. If there was a IVF Clinic on fire and I had time to drag out one adult or a freezer containing 100 embryos, I'd take the adult every time (and I think virtually everyone would make the same decision).

 

I'm confused at how your scale works. You indicated there was a big change at the heartbeat, then it's just a gradual slide up after that?

 

Other than memory (although that's arguable), an unborn baby has those same experiences in utero.

 

None of these things occur before significant brain development has occurred around 18-20 weeks (unless you're counting purely reactive things like reflex), which, as I said, is where I'd place the cutoff. And really, they aren't significantly experienced even after that because the fetus is in a state of extreme sedation until it is birthed.

 

I don't disagree, and I think medically death is considered the lack of heart/lung function or lack of brain activity. But I guess I view it like a car - if the engine dies you may still have some battery power running the radio, but it's not going to last long. If there's no heartbeat, you're not living for very long, so you are irretrievably gone (absent outside assistance).

 

Well, that's not irretrievably then. If your heart stops, you're in trouble. If your brain dies, that's it.

 

It doesn't from the sense that I find both acts wrong. Pain is a factor that is going to significantly increase how wrong I think X action is, though.

 

Ok, that's all I was getting at.

[Jenksismyhero]

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it's a life the entire time. A fertilized egg is a life. It just isn't one I value the same as I'd value other human lives. If there was a IVF Clinic on fire and I had time to drag out one adult or a freezer containing 100 embryos, I'd take the adult every time (and I think virtually everyone would make the same decision).

 

I'm confused at how your scale works. You indicated there was a big change at the heartbeat, then it's just a gradual slide up after that?

 

I just think it's a big milestone that differentiates a bag of developing cells from an independent life that is developing. Yes it's all on a gradual scale, but that's a pretty big moment.

 

None of these things occur before significant brain development has occurred around 18-20 weeks (unless you're counting purely reactive things like reflex), which, as I said, is where I'd place the cutoff. And really, they aren't significantly experienced even after that because the fetus is in a state of extreme sedation until it is birthed.

 

We're arguing degrees here. My point was that it's still not some conscious ability to experience things. It's all sensory development that is building towards something bigger later. Unborn babies "see," feel, hear, touch too. The degree to which they can retain that information and process it is obviously getting bigger and better as they grow older. But it's still building blocks of experiences.

 

What's the dividing line for you? If they don't have any significant experiences until birth, why have any cut off on abortions?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Jenksismybitch