Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris-
Even so, the unborn child is only temporarily non-sentient. The unborn child has the inherent capacity to attain sentience, and is therefore a human person as opposed to a cat or a dog. You once were a zygote, a fetus inside your mother's womb. Your definition has this disjoint where the unborn child is not human but later becomes one.

No. The so called "unborn child" is not temporarily non-sentient, because it has never been sentient before.

[DinoDoc]

What is sentience and how do you determine when an unborn or even an unborn child is sentient?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris-
Even so, the unborn child is only temporarily non-sentient. The unborn child has the inherent capacity to attain sentience, and is therefore a human person as opposed to a cat or a dog. You once were a zygote, a fetus inside your mother's womb. Your definition has this disjoint where the unborn child is not human but later becomes one.

Sorry, but the "it will eventually be sentient" argument doesn't hold water for me. This would just as easily preclude any form of contraception, as one could easily argue that the sperm will one day become part of a sentient being. Also, there is no guarantee the zygote will become sentient, as a large percentage of pregnancies end prematurely by natural means. At any rate, I don't believe it is unethical to destroy an embryo, as it has no atman, it is not sentient human life.

If it's not human in the womb, then what else could it be? Human beings produce other human beings.

It is no more a human being than eating an egg is the same as eating a chicken. It's an embryo.

I'm leery about the health exception for one reason.
Most times, the definition of health involves the UN definition which includes mental health. Doe v Bolton confirmed this perspective, therefore, all abortions were justified because pregnancy has a psychological effect. This is why I prefer life-threatening as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or other rare cases.

Well, by health risks, I meant physical. If the pregnancy threatens the life or the permanent physical well-being of the mother, I think it is right to terminate the pregnancy. Yes, that applies to even non-life threatening conditions, such as one that might render the mother infertile.

True, but the point in question is why are late-term abortions done. You have not shown that late-term abortions are done solely for the health of the mother as opposed to more material concerns.

I didn't say they were all done solely for the health of the mother, only that they were rare. As I said, I believe they should only be done for the health of the mother.

As for the rape issue, it's absolutely clear to me that a woman should not be forced to bear a child she that she had no wish to conceive or even participate in the conception of. It is tantamount to a second rape to force her to carry the child. That being said, I'd subject it to the same rules for normal abortion in terms of the time frame. Either abort it early or keep it, don't wait until the 3rd trimester to have an abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

"This would just as easily preclude any form of contraception, as one could easily argue that the sperm will one day become part of a sentient being."

Good question Boris.

However, what is the difference between sperm and between a zygote? Biologically, a zygote is a diploid cell, containing genes from both the mother and the father. A sperm cell contains only cells from the father.

If you leave sperm alone, will it become anything more than just sperm? No. The same is with an egg. However, a zygote is different. A zygote contains all the instructions required to grow from the genetic code it inherits from CONCEPTION onwards.

All the zygote requires to grow physically is the same thing an infant or even an adolescent requires. Nourishment, in the form of food and water, as well as heat and shelter. No difference, it's a continuum from conception onwards.

Boris, how can something that is not a human being suddenly become one? How do you maintain your identity from one day to the next?

Atman

1 Hinduism : the innermost essence of each individual
2 Hinduism : the supreme universal self : BRAHMA 2 "

Why is the atman only present at the end of the second trimester? And how do we detect an atman?

"That's why I don't think late-term abortions should be done except to protect the life of the mother (which is pretty much the only instances in which they are done today). "

I've been charitable in extending this to health. This is from earlier in the thread. You are claiming threat to the life of the mother, not health.

-Urban Ranger, what definition are you using for sentience? Same as Boris?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
However, what is the difference between sperm and between a zygote? Biologically, a zygote is a diploid cell, containing genes from both the mother and the father. A sperm cell contains only cells from the father.

If you leave sperm alone, will it become anything more than just sperm? No. The same is with an egg. However, a zygote is different. A zygote contains all the instructions required to grow from the genetic code it inherits from CONCEPTION onwards.

That's Boris. He's not a science major. What about body cells then? Biologically they are not different from zygotes, and it is definitely possible to coax them into behaving the same way.

Originally posted by obiwan18
-Urban Ranger, what definition are you using for sentience? Same as Boris?

A sentient being knows that it is an individual.

[Ned]

Nexr Mother's Day will be declared anti-woman by the pro-choice cabal.

[Spiffor]

Ned :
Can you explain how the pro-choice cabal is anti-women please ?
I am precisely pro-choice because I respect women for something else than their infanting abilities, and I assume every pro-choice does.
Can you enlighten me please ?

Edit : nevermind, I understood what you say (I thought the pro-choice wanted to rename "Mother's day" into "Anti-women day" )
And actually, Mother's day is originally extremely conservative in its nature, being invented by Pétain's regime. It was a part of his big natality plan, and clearly rooted into the idea that women have to stay at home and raise their children.
Fortunately, it is just a consumerist fest now (but I still do not celebrate it )

[Sava]

How come John Kennedy gets assassinated and this pud is walking around the country, turning it into his own private little relgious cult... f*ck Bush... I'll spit on him if I ever meet him.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks Urban Ranger.

BTW I'm a history major. Much easier than Physics, although I still have a 'thing' for science.

Interesting point about body cells.

From what I can see, the zygote is kind of special because it is the unique combination of two different genomes. Your own cells will bear the same code as you. Also, you need to coax the cell to change, unlike the zygote which will divide on it's own unless we intervene.

Adult stem cells are cool though.
Be nice to see Christopher Reeves walk because they work with his own cells.

As for sentient as you have defined, the problem is what about infants? Do they have a self-concept in this sense? I don't want to justify infanticide just because an infant is not currently self-aware.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I'm not going to defend abortion in the case of rape.

Having an abortion in the case of rape, is like having your car smashed up by a hit and run driver, and then smashing the car next to you in your frustration and anger. Is it right to hurt an innocent person because someone else has hurt you? No. The woman was violated, but abortion will not get rid of the rape.

From the woman's perspective, having an abortion after rape is like being cut free of the wreckage after a car crash.

The opponents of abortion want to leave her trapped in the wreckage for nine months.

The same analogy can be used for abortion after contraceptive failure. Cars are dangerous, and any person who voluntarily drives a car should expect to remain trapped in the wreckage if it crashes. It is "immoral" to cut them free, even if they had been wearing a seatbelt, as this would absolve them from the consequences of the risk they accepted.

It is clearly an abominable torture to FORCE a woman to carry a hated parasite within her body for nine months. And I would not blame any woman for using deadly force to prevent it, even if this means the assassination of a politician if this would prevent such legislation. It would be a clear case of self-defense.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Of course, there's another problem with "National Sanctity of Life Day".

The main argument of pro-choicers is that the fetus is not a person. But we recognize that it is "life".

If it's life that mustn't be taken, then salt is the only food that should be consumed on National Sanctity of Life Day, plus other minerals and artificial colors and flavors synthesized from petroleum (organic, but not killed by humans).

How many recipes for salt are there?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Proteus,
regarding RU486-

http://dianedew.com/ru486.htm

"Dr. Turshen examined the research findings of French studies, in which 50% of patients using RU-486 suffered complications ranging anywhere from nausea to bleeding for up to 40 days. "

"One death has been reported, supposedly from the prostaglandin (PG) administered with mifepristone. And three women have suffered heart attacks. Numerous others have had to undergo blood transfusions, or dilatation and curettage, to remove remaining placental fragments."

"Abortion with RU-486 is a lengthy procedure (three to five visits required) that cannot be kept confidential, she said. The patient cannot plan where the fetus will be expelled -- in the office, in the hospital, or at home."

The Report is a bit old (1993).

I´d prefer the Report from M.S. Lawrence Roberge:

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

It also states a lot of those Points you mentioned.
But some of the points, for example the excessive bleeding seem to be cause,
because the women self-administered Painkillers without consulting their Doctors first.

His Report sounds to me as if a lot of dangers by administering RU 486
could be avoided by instructing the women properly and especially by keeping
close contact with the mother during the days after taking RU 486 and PG.

But you are right.
Maybe RU486 isn´t the really ideal way to abort pregnancy.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I think it is you who are a little off here. While electric impulses can be detected sometimes as early as 6 weeks, that is not remotely the same as brainwave activity nor remotely comparable to nervous systom neural activity.

At anyrate, I don't think the fetus is classifiable as human until the atman is developed, and I am doubtful that happens until late in the second trimester at the earliest.

Yep, from a neurological Standpoint it would be plausible to say that your Consciousness and therefore your "being human" starts with the development of brainwaves (which require myelinated and interconnected Neurons within the Brain).
I think the 20st week has been the earliest Date at which Brainwaves have been measured to date.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Being asleep does not render one non-sentient. Find a better example.

Yep,
and even while asleep your Brain shows Brainwaves and the fact that you dream during your sleep (although most of the dreams aren´t remembered after wakening) should show everyone, that you aren´t completely without consciousness during sleep but rather in an altered state of Consciousness.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Of course, there's another problem with "National Sanctity of Life Day".

The main argument of pro-choicers is that the fetus is not a person. But we recognize that it is "life".

If it's life that mustn't be taken, then salt is the only food that should be consumed on National Sanctity of Life Day, plus other minerals and artificial colors and flavors synthesized from petroleum (organic, but not killed by humans).

How many recipes for salt are there?

Not to forget,
that with this argument you schouldn´t treat Diseases, because
almost all of them are caused by bacteria which are definitely life,
Viruses, which could be considered Life (there are a lot of discussions about this among biologists)
or sometimes even higher developed Forms of Life like Nematodae (Thread Worms)

If you consider it right,
medicine is a science of death,
because so many lifeforms are killed by treating Diseases, and everything just to save the life of a single human

[Jack the Bodiless]

On the subject of deaths resulting from RU-486 (or, indeed, any other form of abortion performed under medical supervision):

These need to be offset against the danger of death during childbirth.

Even in the modern age, pregnancy is a (relatively) great risk to the mother's life.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
From what I can see, the zygote is kind of special because it is the unique combination of two different genomes.

Same genome.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Your own cells will bear the same code as you.

How does that make a difference? Not all individuals have unique DNA codes.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Also, you need to coax the cell to change, unlike the zygote which will divide on it's own unless we intervene.

Yes, but sex cells don't become zygote automatically either. That's what mating is for So both needs an extra process.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Adult stem cells are cool though.
Be nice to see Christopher Reeves walk because they work with his own cells.

I don't have any problems with using stem cells from embryoes either. You can take a cell when a zygote is at 2, 4, or even 8 (maybe even more) stage without killing it. Also, there is all that extra stuff from artificial insemination that will end up down the toilet anyway. What's the difference.

Originally posted by obiwan18
As for sentient as you have defined, the problem is what about infants? Do they have a self-concept in this sense? I don't want to justify infanticide just because an infant is not currently self-aware.

I expected this question from somebody.

I don't know if infants are sentient. Maybe they are. Unless we can finally nail it down, I am willing to give them benefit of the doubt. Besides, infants are already outside, so it's not really applicable to the abortion debate. The only grey area I see are those fetuses older than 6 months.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
cyclotron

Do you have a responsibility to your parents? Do you have an obligation to respect them and to take care of them if they need help even though you had no choice in the matter?

It would be generous of me to take care of them, but it is not required by law. Surely you see the difference...

If we accept your statement as true, you have just destroyed what a family is all about. Obligations and responsibilities arise from the fetus' right to life. Every right has a corresponding responsibility.

Not a legal responsibility, though. You may think that a family is all about obligations to eachother, but the law doesn't see it that way, and this is a legal issue.

If there was another option for the mother, an incubator that could develop a child apart from the mother's womb, then pregnancy would not confer a duty on the mother. However, since we don't have said incubator, the child has no other place to grow or to develop.

Irrelevant. A person's right to life does not, and never will, confer an obligation to help on anybody. That is why people can die without a kidney transplant while I still have both my kidneys. You may think it is right for me to donate my kidneys, but in the end it is my decision. The right of somebody to their life does not confer an obligation on me, and in the same way an infant's right to life does not confer an obligation on the mother if the mother did not agree to the obligation (i.e., rape).

In order to improve the kidney example, you'd have to change things around, like saying that the man is only hooked up to you for 9 months.

Also irrelevant. Even if he is only hooked up for 10 seconds, I still am not obligated to provide my body for his use.

Also, the man would have to be really small so that you could still walk around and work. Some women do work during pregnancy, you know. It's not a sentence to bed for nine months.

Again, irrelevant. The woman has no obligation to another life forced upon her. As I said, even if the obligation is short or trivial in nature it is still not automatically conferred. You are confusing what you believe is proper with our society's moral beliefs: namely, that right to life does not require you to fulfill an obligation.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm impressed. Lots of good responses here.

Starting with Proteus:

Baruch Brody, Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life: A Philosophical View (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1975).

"At 40-43 days, the embryo's brain waves can be detected by an electroencephalogram"

Why should capacity to brain waves determine human personhood? Brain death is defined as an IRREVERSABLE cessation of brain activity, rather than a temporary cessation. This is different from the embryo. A developing embryo, has the intrinsic capacity to develop brain waves, unlike someone who is brain dead and cannot be revived.

Secondly, what has to happen before brain waves are produced? Like you said, it takes time to develop synapses and neurons. Do we abort someone at 39 days because they are close, but not quite fully developed?

"Not to forget, that with this argument you schouldn´t treat Diseases, because almost all of them are caused by bacteria which are definitely life,"

Where do I say prolife means preserving all life? My definition of personhood excludes viruses, since they cannot attain sentience, they do not have the inherent capacity to develop sentience.


Now for Jack.

"From the woman's perspective, having an abortion after rape is like being cut free of the wreckage after a car crash."

"It is "immoral" to cut them free, even if they had been wearing a seatbelt, as this would absolve them from the consequences of the risk they accepted."

"to FORCE a woman to carry a hated parasite"

Your example assumes that the unborn are not persons, the point being debated. Why do we cut wreckage? Because wreckage is just metal. Abortion is only immoral if another person is involved.

How is the unborn child then different from you now? Are you completely independent of other people? If not, then by your own definition, you are a parasite.

"These need to be offset against the danger of death during childbirth."

Waited for this point. Couple things.
Just because childbirth may kill me, am I justified in killing someone else to ensure my safety? The unborn child has nowhere else to go.

Suppose a hobo comes on my doorway, in the middle of a snowstorm. Do I turn the hobo away because I'm afraid he may have a knife, and he may kill me? Even if I don't see a knife? Even if I know he will die in the storm if I let him go?

Pregnancy is very safe. Less than 7 and 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US according to the CDC.


Urban Ranger-

"Yes, but sex cells don't become zygote automatically either."

Zygotes form after sex. Cells need to be coaxed even when they are cells. A zygote requires nothing other than nourishment and shelter to grow and develop, same as an infant or any of us.

"How does that make a difference? Not all individuals have unique DNA codes."

Right- identical twins are genetic copies of each other, even though they are seperate individuals. Point well taken. The code is human, that is the most important part.

"Besides, infants are already outside, so it's not really applicable to the abortion debate."

If sentience = personhood, non-sentience = non-personhood. If infants are not persons, then we should have no qualms about killing them. That is the relevancy to the debate.

Are you arguing that personhood is based on whether you are inside or outside the womb?


And the toughest for last,
Cyclotron.

"Not a legal responsibility, though. You may think that a family is all about obligations to each other, but the law doesn't see it that way, and this is a legal issue."

"A person's right to life does not, and never will, confer an obligation to help on anybody."

Pregnancy is different from saving a person on drowning in the river. By the time you know you are pregnant, you are already in the river, holding onto the person.

What about negligence? Doesn't a mother have a responsibility to care for her children? Why her, and why not somebody else?

Again, I'll repeat my earlier line, every right has a corresponding responsibility. Just as free speech confers a responsibility on the state to respect the speakers, or freedom of religion prevents the state from closing places of worship, so should the right to life prevent people from killing the unborn child.

Otherwise why have a right to life at all?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
If you leave sperm alone, will it become anything more than just sperm? No. The same is with an egg. However, a zygote is different.

Not true. If you leave a zygote alone, it will die too. It needs to be nurished and fed and have a warm place to sleep.

Should a pregnant woman not taking care of herself be criminal? Should eating disorders when pregnant be criminal? Should drinking or smoking when pregnant be criminal? Should not drinking water, not doing everything you can to make sure you have a healthy baby, like taking vitamins, be criminal?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
How come John Kennedy gets assassinated and this pud is walking around the country, turning it into his own private little relgious cult... f*ck Bush... I'll spit on him if I ever meet him.

So now, Sava, you spit on the religious? I find it interesting that you single out for hate people of high morality that seek to protect life and Liberty, while complementing the cruel, the barbarous and the torturers. I see you have a fundamental grasp of right and wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Should a [mother] not taking care of herself be criminal? Should eating disorders when [parenting] be criminal? Should drinking or smoking when [parenting] be criminal?
Should not drinking water, not doing everything you can to make sure you have a healthy [child], like taking vitamins, be criminal?"

tandee, any mother who loves her child whether unborn or already born will not deliberately do things that are harmful to her children. Your points can only be dealt with once you assume the unborn is a human person.

Cases where this is a concern, such as drug abusers, you have to remember that the mother has her own problems to deal with.

Are these problems best dealt by arresting pregnant mothers? No. Counselling, and rehab programs do help both the mother and her child.

What forms these would take, I do not know. Perhaps others can contribute?

[DinoDoc]

Sigh...

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
How is the unborn child then different from you now? Are you completely independent of other people? If not, then by your own definition, you are a parasite.

No, I think you have your two definitions of dependence mixed up. We depend on other people in that we have grown used to a division of labors which allows us to voluntarily exhange that which we have produced for that which others have produced. Comparing this to forcing an unwilling participant to provide you with your every sustenance is negligent.

Waited for this point. Couple things.
Just because childbirth may kill me, am I justified in killing someone else to ensure my safety? The unborn child has nowhere else to go.

Yes. If someone is going to kill you, you have the right to kill them.

Suppose a hobo comes on my doorway, in the middle of a snowstorm. Do I turn the hobo away because I'm afraid he may have a knife, and he may kill me? Even if I don't see a knife? Even if I know he will die in the storm if I let him go?

That's up to you. But you certainly don't have a responsibility to do so.

Pregnancy is very safe. Less than 7 and 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US according to the CDC.

Can you find us the statistics for a woman who has a disorder which causes pregnancy to be more dangerous for her?

Zygotes form after sex. Cells need to be coaxed even when they are cells. A zygote requires nothing other than nourishment and shelter to grow and develop, same as an infant or any of us.

But none of us, ever, has the right to demand these things of anyone except the person who has chosen to take on that responsibility. (I know that you will answer that having sex is taking on the responsibility of parenthood. However, I think we should agree to disagree on that.)

Right- identical twins are genetic copies of each other, even though they are seperate individuals. Point well taken. The code is human, that is the most important part.

I think you said the most important part was being sentient, or having the compacity for sentience? What about those with brain defects?

"Besides, infants are already outside, so it's not really applicable to the abortion debate."

If sentience = personhood, non-sentience = non-personhood. If infants are not persons, then we should have no qualms about killing them. That is the relevancy to the debate.

I think it's not really applicable because there are others who can be repsonsible for infants outside the womb, like the father. Or others who would choose to take on that responsibility.

What about negligence? Doesn't a mother have a responsibility to care for her children? Why her, and why not somebody else?

What if the mother dies right after childbirth. Then no one is responsible for them?

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Bush doesn't want to go to war. If he were a warmonger, he would already be at war with Iraq.

The only reason that he's not at war is because the rest of the world, and now the US public, won't let him.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Clinton would never have announced something to this effect.

Because he was a lot smarter than Bush.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

That being said, I don't support the war for the same reason I don't support abortion- what gives us the right to kill these Iraqis?

Oil.

[tandeetaylor]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by obiwan18 tandee, any mother who loves her child whether unborn or already born will not deliberately do things that are harmful to her children. Your points can only be dealt with once you assume the unborn is a human person.

I agree, but can we impose the legal responsibility of taking care of yourself upon a person who doesn't agree with you or care?

Are these problems best dealt by arresting pregnant mothers? No. Counselling, and rehab programs do help both the mother and her child.

What if they don't go, or don't want to go, or fail to succeed?

What forms these would take, I do not know.

Well, be more prepared to carry out your proposals to their complete implication, or stop advocating them.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Women make the choice whether to have sex or not. Slaves do not have a choice whether or not to be slaves.

I suppose rape isn't part of your vocabulary. How about being so economically dependant on men that they have no choice but cater to someone else's wishes. What about the "Love and Leave Them" guys. Should the lives of both the woman and the child be miserable because of the poverty that many single mothers face?

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Approximately 90% of the women who have an abortion record some kind of negative effect afterwards, whether it be depression or something more serious.

That is such a silly argument. Of course they're going to feel depressed about their decision. It's part of a woman's biology to feel a bond for the child they carry. Do you think that women go through the procedure just for the hell of it? It's a very painful choice for them.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
And the toughest for last,
Cyclotron.

I'm flattered.

"Not a legal responsibility, though. You may think that a family is all about obligations to each other, but the law doesn't see it that way, and this is a legal issue."

"A person's right to life does not, and never will, confer an obligation to help on anybody."

Pregnancy is different from saving a person on drowning in the river. By the time you know you are pregnant, you are already in the river, holding onto the person.

I can't see any difference between a grown person who needs you for life support (or to save their life) and a fetus who requires the mother for life, at least morally speaking. Whatever obligations you may attach to motherhood above and beyond what I have stated are not reflected in the critical analysis of morality or in law.

What about negligence? Doesn't a mother have a responsibility to care for her children? Why her, and why not somebody else?

The mother has a responsibility to care for her children because she brought them into the world, so to speak. Negligence is when you accept a duty, such as caring for a child, and then renege on that obligation in a harmful way. In the case of rape, the duty was not accepted, and so the mother does not have a moral obligation and thus cannot be charged with negligence. To charge a raped woman who had an abortion would be like conscripting a man against his will to watch your children, and then charging him when he fell asleep and your kids fell into the pool. Because he never agreed to take care of your kids in the first place, he can't be obligated to make sure of their safety; he is not negligent. Forcing somebody to take care of a child and then charging that person with negligence when the child dies sounds an awful lot like slavery: you are forcing someone to take care of children for you and be responsible for those children. That's not motherhood; it's more like a slave nanny (if there is such a thing).

Again, I'll repeat my earlier line, every right has a corresponding responsibility. Just as free speech confers a responsibility on the state to respect the speakers, or freedom of religion prevents the state from closing places of worship, so should the right to life prevent people from killing the unborn child.

A right has a responsibility, but a right of one person cannot force a responsibility on another. The rights you speak of, freedom of religion or speech, do not convey any responsibility. The right to life only protects a person from being needlessly killed. Even if the right to life meant that none of us has the right to die, that right still does not impose obligations on other people.

Otherwise why have a right to life at all?

The right to life is important, but it does not supercede the rights of others: I can't for example, take thousands of dollars from unwilling people in order to pay for my own operation to keep me alive. I have a right to life, but in that case it does not supercede the right of those people to their property. In the same way, that kidney failure guy from my previous analogy may have a right to life, but it does not cancel out my right to privacy and my own body. A fetus may have a right to life, but that does not supercede the woman's right to her own body.

[Ben Kenobi]

Willem-

I conceded that point with Bush. Since then, I have just been defending the second half of the statement-
Is Bush right to defend the sanctity of life?

Tandee-

"Comparing this to forcing an unwilling participant to provide you with your every sustenance is negligent."

How is an infant different from an unborn child in this regard? Why not kill your infant because you are unwilling to provide it with every sustenance?

"Can you find us the statistics for a woman who has a disorder which causes pregnancy to be more dangerous for her?"

Do your own research.

"What about those with brain defects?"

What kind of brain defects do you refer to? I've been arguing that having the intrinsic capacity for sentience makes one a person.

"What if the mother dies right after childbirth. Then no one is responsible for them?"

Nope, the father should be responsible. Said that before.

"I think it's not really applicable because there are others who can be repsonsible for infants outside the womb, like the father. Or others who would choose to take on that responsibility. "

You pull the child out of the womb you kill the child. I'm comparing abortion to infanticide, why would one be right and the other wrong. How can someone else 'be responsible' for a child who is already dead?

(edited for spelling)

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

If there is only one person, then no justification is necessary for abortion. None whatsoever. If there is two, then both need to be considered.

Exactly. And it's the mother's role to determine what she feels is best for her child. That's what parents do. If the mother feels that living in poverty, or being in an abusive situation, is not in the best interests of her child, then she has the right to end that pregnancy before the child has a chance to experience misery.