No, many children this age know more than one word. Added that a baby who screams "MINE!" KNOWS what that means! A parrot does not. In Child Psychology and Development "self awareness" is present at birth. If not, the child would not cry to get what he needs to stay alive. Yes, babies are dependent on their mothers or other caretakers, it doesn't mean they are not deserving of life. Also, at about 9 months of age, a child can recognize himself in a mirror. A good indication that he or she is now aware that they are a separate being, thus very "self aware." (Some kids can do this a lot earlier, and many brain damaged and senile adults cannot do this at all. However, they are ALL human.) Do you have any refs for your "no self awareness until 3" promotion?
We are really dealing with two separate issues here. I don't think the false assumption that children under three don't count as humans help either side of this Choice argument.
The notion that a certain level of development or self-awareness must be achieved in order to qualify for personhood is a completely subjective philosophical assertion. The "pro-choice" view clearly bases public policy on faith, not science. The pro-life view insists that all humans are persons.
...which is why I've stated that babies should be legally considered "persons" as soon as they are born. It is the anti-abortionists here who have run with my philosophical view on personhood, to distract from the complete irrationality of their arguments.
You shyed away with providing a definition of "person" or "human." When you have an answer to that, we'll talk.
Why don't you explain how the unborn are somehow not human? Forget about consciousness and personhood for the moment. Though they are biologically dependent upon their mothers, they are genetically and biologically distinct from them. What form of life are they?
You confuse "human" in the biological sense of the word with "human" in the psychological sense of the word. I've told you what I mean by human. Now you tell me your definition. If you don't have one, then you can't possibly have an informed opinion about the "humanity" (or lack thereof) of a fetus.
I reject the notion that any of us has the right to impose subjective psychological criteria on others to qualify as human. I've addressed this issue from a scientific perspective. If you're looking for a philosophical treatise, here's one that I cited many pages ago on this thread: http://www.lifeprinciples.net/ModelTeachText.html
** So Huck me old mucker How does calling people ‘immoral’ help combat abortion? I mean you say people that have had sex outside of marriage are ‘immoral’ that they are driven by ‘sexual gratification’. It is very difficult to argue with this since it is not a rationally based viewpoint but something based on your religious beliefs but just how does this labelling help combat abortion? I mean if a girl does get pregnant in such circumstances and she and her family knows that if people find out that she is will be labelled, immoral, a sinner, harlot, fornicator, Jezebel. Therefore bringing her and family into disrepute and dishonour. Then do you think that there might be a bit of pressure on her to think about getting rid of the problem discreetly, legally or not? OR do you believe that just by stigmatising people it will stop them ‘sinning’ if so what do you base that theory on or is it another irrationally held faith based belief? (I myself might call, derogatory labelling, a social and cultural influence but then you don’t really believe in them, so I’ll refrain from saying it) **
Balbus, If you look at the reasons you cited for abortion, none of them mentioned shame or fear of family rejection. They had far more to do with people wanting to avoid the impacts that parenting would have on their lifestyles. There is no shortage of pro-life support programs for single mothers who choose not to kill their babies.
I think that is the main reason why I've decided abortion on demand just isn't something I can support. I've never known one person to have an abortion because of a life or death situation. That said, I do know several who have had an abortion because they were not "ready" to be parents. A lot of the pro-choice argument (from reading this thread all the way through) seems to be that people can't be expected to not have sex or to at least use contraceptives or even give the child up for adoption. Why should abortion even be an issue? Before you come to abortion you can: 1.) Not have sex if you are not ready for a child. 2.) Use contraceptives if you are going to choose to have sex. 3.) Go through an adoption agency. Other than the life/death situation (which doesn't cover 1/3 the amount of abortions each year) I don't see why abortion should be a right. And that's my 2cents.
** Huck my old friend As I’ve told you before try to think before you get the urge to score a point. Remember that you don’t always have to see things just in terms of your dogmatic beliefs, try to look at some information and see it from another angle. You see --mother single or in poor relationship(12-13 %) and think sinner, Jezebel, harlot. I would admit to not knowing but it could mean many things, one of which could be shame or fear of family rejection. The thing is all along I’ve being asking for more understanding, Huck your answer here show that you are not interested in understanding your mind is made up and ridged, fixed that way by the prejudice of your own religious beliefs. I pity you but I would pity others more if you or your kind ever got hold of some power, religious bigotry can be very nasty. **
Same could hold true for the girl if she was a murderer, rapist, con-artist, pedaphile, ect. To believe that morality and law have nothing to do with each other is very niave(sp). Do you think we prosecute criminals to keep us safe or to punish the criminals? Morality has and should have everything to do with it.
** Shane so why do people do or not do these things and how do you encourage or discourage those actions? Are you views the same as Huck’s that people are moral or immoral? If so why? **
Murder, theft, rape? Reasons for doing these are irrelevant to society's response to the action taken by that individual. Let's say a guy grows up in a poor neighborhood, never knows his father, is beaten by his drunken mother, and went to a crap school. Now, all of these are definetly factors in the kind of person he will become, but none excuse the individual choice to rape, muder, con, ect. Why do we prosecute rapists, muderers, con-artists, pedaphiles? 1.) To protect members of society of future acts perpetrated by them. 2.) Because these acts are IMMORAL. We do not allow members of society to muder because to murder is wrong. We do not allow members of society to rape because to rape is wrong. We should not allow members of society to abort a fetus because abortion is wrong. That simple. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. For instance, if the option is kill or be killed it is ruled self-defense and is not punished. In that same spirit if a women's life is threatend the act of abortion would be a valid option. But for conveinience(sp)? That doesnt quite fit. Once again, it is the ACT that should be discouraged regardless of people's circumstance or intentions.
Yes, I confess to "rigidly" believing that killing an unborn child for social reasons is unacceptable, especially when other options are readily available.
Let's say a guy grows up in a poor neighborhood, never knows his father, is beaten by his drunken mother, and went to a crap school. Now, all of these are definetly factors in the kind of person he will become, but none excuse the individual choice to rape, muder, con, ect. So are you saying that if the same person if they had been brought up differently would still have taken that ‘individual choice’ to commit a crime? **
Why do we prosecute rapists, muderers, con-artists, pedaphiles? 1.) To protect members of society of future acts perpetrated by them. 2.) Because these acts are IMMORAL. No because they have been accused of breaking a countrys laws. But laws are not the same in every place. It was common in many legal systems that there could be no such thing as rape within a marriage. A woman didn’t have the right to say no, to a husband’s demands for sex, and divorce was not allowed, unless the man wanted it. The age of consent is different (and has been) in different countries for some it is 14 other I believe are as low as 12,(I think it may be even different in some States of the US) so what would be legal child molestation in one place would not necessarily be in another. Even the killing of one person by another has legal definitions, so the killing of someone in the US might be called legal (shooting an intruder) but be seen in the UK as murder. Also killing is sanctioned or unsanctioned depending on the laws of that country or international laws. The law of a state might have the right to execute people for what it sees as heinous crimes such as the murder of a child in the US or adultery in Sudan and any countries employees can be licensed to kill such as a US Marine or Colombian government torturer. You have to ask yourself what is ‘moral’ since moral values change so much form time to time and from place to place. You say wrong is wrong and it is that simple? Is it? The taliban thought the way they acted moral, it fitted in with their religion and their law, as they saw them. You might claim that you are more moral than they, since you know better than them about what is right and wrong. The only thing is they thought the same about westerners who they saw as morally corrupt and evil, who were right and who wrong? Do you think it depends where and how you were brought up? Or do you think that everyone, everywhere, and whenever they were born, have ‘by nature’ the same view of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’? **
** I have said since I entered this thread that I found invasive abortion repulsive. I have been arguing that Americans need to understand why these abortions are taking place as a way of helping the people involved and bring about a reduction in there numbers. What I seem to have discovered is that the majority of ‘anti’s’ don’t seem to care about that or feel very much need to think about it, they know, they already understand, and so they know what needs to be done. They shout about murder, and ask if the pro’s would accept paedophilia, and go on and on and on about what they see as being ‘moral’ and what they see as being ‘right’ and the spectra of religion often seems to hangs over much of what they say. It seems obvious to me that these people have stopped wanting to help people their attitude seem to be to shrug their shoulders. They tell us that they know these people that I think need the help and seem to say they cannot be helped. They are just the immoral, and such sinners would act the way they do whatever was done to try and help them, so they seem to be saying why try. Have they another agenda. There is one thing these immoral souls can do, only one way out, as one of them makes very clear, these sinners can redeem themselves by getting religion, and then they will be born again as moral individuals. So I have to ask myself is this ‘anti’ position of some of them just a way of pushing religion? ** Q: Why are there so many legal abortions. A: Because people can get a legal abortion. Do they think abortion will go away if abortion is made illegal no, but they do argue that the figures for the number of legal abortions will go down. Do they think women will stop wanting abortions, no, they just argue that they will be able to force them not to. Is this a realistic policy? To me it seems like a recipe for a more brutish an nasty society, were religious/political dogma take the place of reality. Q: Why do people wants to have abortions A: Because they are immoral. Their reason for saying that these people are immoral is simple, because they acted immorally and to the reason why they acted immorally is also simple, because they are immoral. But if you are moral until you act immorally what influenced you to act immorally if you were moral? **
Why not? The majority of the disadvatanged do not committ these crimes while some of the most horrendous crimes have been committed be the afluent. It ALWAYS boils down to individual choice.
