OK, let's see: Are you pro-choice?

[cali]

[armyowalgreens]

1. No restrictions on abortions at all...

That includes late term abortion.

[cali]

2. I part company with you there.

I do not think that a healthy woman bearing a healthy fetus should be allowed, under the law, to abort after the fetus is viable. Fortunately, that practically never happens.

[armyowalgreens]

3. The fetus has no vested interest in it's survival...

Unless I am incorrect and the fetus is self-aware. But I distinctly remember reading that even infants up to a certain age are not self-aware.

Any being that is not self-aware has no vested interested in its own survival. Therefore survival interest is left up to all parties with a potential to have a vested interest in the being. That would essentially be the parents. However, being that the fetus is a part of the woman, it falls under her right to control her body.

[cali]

8. lol. infants are self-aware. have a kid and you'll find that out soon enough.

but by your reasoning, killing infants should be legalized. And I completely disagree with your contention that "any being that is not self-aware has no vested interest in its own survival". Even if that were "true", society has an interest in preserving the life of infants and those with, say, Alzheimer's and others.

And I'd argue that we don't know if a fetus of 7, 8 or 9 months is self-aware. A fetus definitely responds to stimulus. Ask any woman who's ever been pregnant.

[armyowalgreens]

9. Well now you are going to hate me...

Because I don't necessary believe that non self-aware infants have a vested interest in their future. In other words, they don't necessarily have a right to life.

Of course not all infants lack self-awareness. But infants are not born self-aware. It comes at a certain point in development. But at what point is key.


Being self-aware is having the conscious ability to understand that "you" are a separate being from everything else. It's having the ability to understand the consequences of your actions (both good and bad) and being able to know that you are manipulating the world around you.

It doesn't have anything to do with response to stimulus. That is something different.


I do think that beings that can feel suffering deserve a painless death.


Now, the vested interest part is where I am shaky. I don't know for certain what parties count as having a vested interest. Generally speaking, it is parties that are close to the being. I'm not talking about society. I'm not talking about all of humanity. The judgement call must be made by those who know the beings situation.


This all means that any human without the ability to be self-aware does not automatically have the right to life. Humans that are permanently mentally incapacitated, they are not self-aware, do not have the right to life. Euthanizing them is acceptable assuming that their condition will be permanent (or we have no reason to assume that it won't be) and all parties with vested interests agree that ending the beings life is the best option.


However, based on your own beliefs, you should probably be a vegetarian. You are a vegetarian right?

[cali]

10. No, I don't hate you. I do think you display the callowness of youth.

Your definition of self-awareness is dicey- at best. Do profoundly retarded people have self-awareness? How about someone who is profoundly mentally ill? How does one discern which infants are self-aware and which aren't? I hate to say this, but your screed fit perfectly with the Nazi philosophy that advocated and carried out the killings of those with disabilities.

And what does vegetarianism have to do with this discussion? Nothing. But no, I'm not a vegetarian. I eat the chickens I raise- though I'm not doing it this year- I didn't even eat all the chickens I raised last summer. I eat locally raised meat- from time to time. I'm lucky to live in a community that's probably the most into locally grown food and food products in the country- but that's another story.

[armyowalgreens]

11. Out come the Nazi comparisons...

I don't hold it against you. I've been called many nasty things before. It's the life of a utilitarian.

There has not been a definitive answer for the question "when does an infant become self-aware?". So as of right now, I am against killing any infants. But if the day comes that we can somehow pinpoint when an infant becomes self-aware, my stance will probably change.

My stance is strong on abortion though. It is a piece of the mother and therefore the woman can do with it what she wants.

You seem to be against killing beings that are very similar in intelligence to many animals that I am almost certain you consume. Chickens, Cows, Pigs (especially pigs)...etc. They are all roughly equal in intelligence to a new born human. And in many cases they are more intelligent.

If you are against killing new borns, you should also be against killing most animals. Probably most of the tasty ones.

In other words, you should be vegetarian. I'm beginning the transition myself to go along with my beliefs.


If you don't allow the same considerations to be given to non-humans, you are suffering from something called "speciesism". It's like racism, but with species. You believe that the human species is more valuable than another species simply because we are humans. Which is ludicrous.


I have to go to bed because I have work in 6 hours. But I'll be on later in the day to read and hopefully respond.

[cali]

12. if you're going to advocate killing people who are severely mentally ill, yeah

the Nazi comparison is apt. Sorry, your post was callous, callow and insane- as well as ugly stuff.

I think it's because you're so very young that you hold some of these views. Generally speaking, people of 20, lack perspective. You demonstrate that.

And I too have to go to work- will also check in later. have a good day.

[armyowalgreens]

16. Please don't misrepresent my stance...

I said that people who suffer from permanent mental incapacitation, that leaves them non self-aware, do not have the right to life. Therefore the option to keep them living is left up to close relatives. I would also be okay with a court appointed judge.

I said nothing of "severe mental illness". That is completely different than what I said.

If the Nazis held the same stance that I do, that is purely coincidental. I'm sure they also liked ham sandwiches, but you don't call me a Nazi for also liking ham sandwiches.


You call it callous. I call it the best position to have if you want to truly help people. Utilitarianism has been around for 150 years. Many people, young and old, agree with it. Don't try to shut me down because I'm young. You don't know what "perspective" I have on life.

The only reason you call it callous is because you are not comfortable with the ideas I have presented. It's the "allegory of the cave" syndrome.


I'd also still like to know what you think about my vegetarian discussion.

[Quantess]

4. Looks like a biased poll to me.

[Rhiannon12866]

6. I think it represents the range of possible opinions...

I believe that every woman has the right to make this decision based on whatever circumstances she faces and know that it is never easy. And no one can possibly decide for anyone else unless you've walked a mile in her shoes. :-(

[cali]

7. how is it biased? I tried to make it as unbiased as possible.

What, specifically, do you think is biased?

[MrModerate]

5. It would be socially useful to specify where, between fetus and (presumably) newborn . . .

"Personhood" is reached. As neither medicine nor morals nor (grid forbid) religion has a definitive answer, the question would be best answered by society (by which I mean, through the agency of the law). Birth -- whether natural, caesarian, or induced, might be a reasonable place to start. That would solve the controversy over late-term abortions (because, viability notwithstanding, those fetuses would not have been "born").

[stray cat]

13. Can we stop providing health care to premies?

:sarcasm: thats one of my problems with being pro-late term abortions in all situations. We spend more money trying to save premies and performing surgery even on fetuses than any part of health care except the last 6 months of life. We really do as a society value the fetus if it is a wanted fetus and we are pretty successful in neonatal intensive care units even though many of these children may have prolonged and permanant difficulties.

[annabanana]

14. Umm.. who voted to restrict late term?. . Educate yourselves...

NO ONE goes for one of those unless the foetus is already dead, or so horribly deformed that it can't survive outside the womb.. or a delivery would kill the woman or render her infertile...

Exactly which one of these late term abortions would you "restrict"?

[crazyjoe]

15. I believe that late term abortion should be illegal.

Unless there is a danger to the mother, or they discover the child has some sever disability or disease.
I'm not a doctor, nor am I a woman so I'm not even sure at what time an abortion is considered "late term" but
I guess it means the infant can survive outside the womb.
If you want an abortion, it should be safe and legal and available, and paid for by the government if you can't pay, but I do consider a late term abortion for the sake of convenience or a change in circumstance absolutely disgusting.
Fogive my ignorance but is there a fedral law concerning this?