Abortion.

[Jonathan]

It’s interesting to see how much the debate on abortion differs between the US and say Europe.

Since 1973 when abortion became legal in USA, about 70 countries have liberalised or legalised abortion. In most cases, after all the pros and cons had been ventilated and both sides had had their says, there was a parliamentary voting or referendum on the matter and afterwards the question of abortion was settled, basically for good. This is how things are normally handled in democracies - a decision is made and the case is then dismissed. Why this isn’t the case in the US, I think is because of the Constitution.

Despite its age, the Constitution plays such an important role in American politics in ways that are hardly seen in any other country. The Constitution is almost sacred. As a result, the legal status of abortion is not up to the public to decide. In western Europe, abortion has gained legitimacy after parliamentary majority decisions but in America, the right to abortion in America is a decision based on an interpretation of the Constitution – an interpretation that can be drawn differently, by other judges in the Supreme Court in the future. So the abortion debate never dies.

In a deeply religious America, moral questions never gets technical as they tend to in Europe. Americans debate fundamental things in life much more extensively than in Europe, which is why abortion can never become a health issue in the US. Abortion becomes a question of “the right to life” or “the right to choose” and the life & death aspect is maybe the most fundamental question of all. This could be one explanation why a majority of the Americans are against abortion.


By the way, I am NOT badmouthing the Constitution if anyone thought so

[Lief Erikson]

An interesting post, Jonathon. I agree completely, and I'm very glad that our response to the issue differs from Europe's in the ways you mention.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It's curious but I can't help but wonder whether, supposing men were able to get pregnant too, I would have less men telling me what is right or wrong to do with one cell (and whatever develops from it) in my own body.

Probably true. People tend to do what's best for them or makes them feel the most comfortable a lot, and people like the easy route. So I bet that if the issue actually involved their bodies, many men would react selfishly, just as many women do.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not so much because of the Bible, as because of the tradition of the Church. Certain texts do support the ban on contraception, but not enough to extrapolate it from them. It is a matter of the continuous teaching of the Church.

There is logic behind it, but I don't have time to go into it now. Remind me later.

Do you feel like going into that now? I'm interested in what you have to say.

Also, what you and Lief said earlier in the thread got me thinking a lot about my own beliefs.

I realise that I do not think a foetus is a person. I see them as part of the woman's body that has a functioning brain and human DNA.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

An interesting post, Jonathon.

One letter away from Jonathong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I realise that I do not think a foetus is a person. I see them as part of the woman's body that has a functioning brain and human DNA.

All because of the umbilical cord? Why in the world do you place so much significance on that cord? It just provides life support- that's all. If the foetus is thinking and feeling, it is automatically its own person. Even if it has a biological construct attaching it to the mother and providing automatic life support.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

One letter away from Jonathong.

Oops . . . I'll have to watch me spellin' .

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

All because of the umbilical cord? Why in the world do you place so much significance on that cord? It just provides life support- that's all. If the foetus is thinking and feeling, it is automatically its own person. Even if it has a biological construct attaching it to the mother and providing automatic life support.

The umbilical cord and the womb are very, very important, thus the significance I place on it.

The way I see it, personhood is granted upon birth.

I'm not attacking your own view, just defending mine here.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The way I see it, personhood is granted upon birth.

Excuse me but there I think there may be a small problem with that. You see if personhood begins at birth then the defining characteristic of personhood is location. Inside the womb it a nothing outside it's a person; but the human fetus can live outside the womb up to five months premature is the baby human then? Location is not the variable that determines personhood if it were, our rights would change when we went from the living room to the kitchen.

There are other variables; Size, level of development, and degree of dependence; none of those factors are defining characteristics of humans thus are not reasons to kill a human fetus.

"Human Fetus" it is in the very semantics of the debate; what can we call this fetus? it can only be called a "human fetus" not because thats what it will become but because thats what it is.

[Jonathan]

Let's also reflect on the semantics of the word "personhood", for the sake of further discussion. Can a fetus develop a personhood at all without seeing, smelling or in any way directly experiencing the outside world? If one doesn't think so, location would be much less of a defining characteristic.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The umbilical cord and the womb are very, very important, thus the significance I place on it.

[. . .]

I'm not attacking your own view, just defending mine here.

I know, I'm on the offensive. I don't see anything wrong with attacking anyone else's view, myself . It challenges both myself and the other person, which might cause one of us to learn something.

Why do you say that umbilical cord and the womb are so critically important? To the foetus, the umbilical cord is just life support and the womb is just a location.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The way I see it, personhood is granted upon birth.

Then abortion at any point up to birth is valid, since you're not killing a person, right?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Let's also reflect on the semantics of the word "personhood", for the sake of further discussion. Can a fetus develop a personhood at all without seeing, smelling or in any way directly experiencing the outside world? If one doesn't think so, location would be much less of a defining characteristic.

Why does the foetus' capability of experiencing the "outside world" make such a difference? It can experience life inside the womb. That's just another location in the world.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why do you say that umbilical cord ... [is] so critically important? To the foetus, the umbilical cord is just life support...

Lol

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why does the foetus' capability of experiencing the "outside world" make such a difference? It can experience life inside the womb. That's just another location in the world.

I simply stated that one's personal idea of "personhood" can play a role in the debate.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Let's also reflect on the semantics of the word "personhood", for the sake of further discussion. Can a fetus develop a personhood at all without seeing, smelling or in any way directly experiencing the outside world? If one doesn't think so, location would be much less of a defining characteristic.

That would make the sinlgle defining characteristic 'level of awareness'; I don't see how that would determine humanity or non-humanity after all some people know very little outside of their primitive existence (like an african tribe for instance) they haven't experienced the modern technology and what not that we in Wester civ have but they are just as human.

[hectorberlioz]

Darth Rohirrous! You're back!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oops . . . I'll have to watch me spellin' .

Indeed... You missed a letter!

Originally Posted by Jon

Let's also reflect on the semantics of the word "personhood", for the sake of further discussion. Can a fetus develop a personhood at all without seeing, smelling or in any way directly experiencing the outside world? If one doesn't think so, location would be much less of a defining characteristic.

Now, THIS is an interesting discussion, and one that could actually make some headway. What does it mean to be a person, and why do you say that?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Darth Rohirrous! You're back!

for a while at least
how are ya hectorous?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

for a while at least
how are ya hectorous?

Doing what we line of Great Darths do best...calling up political revolutions

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Doing what we line of Great Darths do best...calling up political revolutions

Revolutins yes *snaps fingers and watches force lightning sizzle* wait you're already the president

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Lol

Lol!

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I simply stated that one's personal idea of "personhood" can play a role in the debate.

Ah, well in that case I agree.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Indeed... You missed a letter!

Darn, my bad . . . or maybe you[']r[e] bad?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Now, THIS is an interesting discussion, and one that could actually make some headway. What does it mean to be a person, and why do you say that?

Yes, definitely is an important issue. Though I have my doubts that anything will ever make any headway with anyone . It still can be fun to argue it, though, and useful for gaining new insight and knowledge.

My time on Entmoot has gotten me cynical .

[Nurvingiel]

I agree that it's okay to be on the offensive. I just didn't want to take on two roles of attacking and defending. Anyways.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Then abortion at any point up to birth is valid, since you're not killing a person, right?

Ah, now you've entered the grey area.

It's the grey area... I got nothin'. There are some areas of this debate where I have not made up my mind.

I feel by the third trimester it's too late to have an abortion, but why? I don't know. Maybe third trimester abortions would be too unacceptable to society, and not having them is a good comprimise. (Or at least, the closest thing to a comprimise that pro-life and pro-choice will ever see, I imagine.)

As for my own personal views? True, I don't see a third trimester abortion as killing a person, but I don't agree with them either. It is, like I said, in the grey area that I can't defend.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Darn, my bad . . . or maybe you[']r[e] bad?

Can't they both be right?

Anyway, I'm really interested in this personhood question. Anyone want to throw out something?

[Nurvingiel]

I'll have a go...

IMO, these are the criteria for personhood:

1. Have human DNA
2. Be born
3. Possess a mind

(Because of 3, Siamese twins are two people, because they both have minds.)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

1) Define "mind".
2) What is your reason for defining personhood thus? It seems to be more of a nominal definiton; what I'm looking for is, "What is the very essence, the form, the 'what it is to be this thing', of personhood? What actually makes it so? And let us not only look into the quia, that it is, but also ask after the propter quid, on account of what it is so; for it seems that we cannot give with anything approaching certainty an answer without a cause.