PDA

View Full Version : Slavery still exists in America.


El Barto
04-05-2004, 08:38 AM
I haven't decided yet, I would appreciate your comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the following thinking:

When someone has the right to decide whether you live or die, and they can do so when you are a perfectly normal human being, solely at their own discretion, don't they in essense own you. In the same way perhaps as you own a dog. You are innocent, you are healthy, but if I want I can kill you without being considered a murderer. This is slavery, yes?

Lets say you are walking down the street and you see a auto accident. The only person involved is ejected from the car and lands face down in a ditch filled with water. He is going to drown. Do you have a responsibility to remove his head from the water so he can breath?

If we did not lift a finger to help a six month old baby to survive, he would certainly die of neglect. And you would go to jail. But if you are a mother, you can decree that your unborn baby will not have permission to live any more. The unborn baby is her slave.

Lets face it, an unborn baby is human (check the DNA), has a future as a self-reliant individual (unlike a brain-dead coma patient), and is innocent of any crime. Yet that baby can be killed at the whim of their "owner", while we will preserve the life of the coma patient (who has no future), and the criminal, and cherish the life of the six month old. Does this make sense?

Yes, bearing a baby is a burden, and requires a sacrifice, but so does dragging the fellow out of the ditch, or laboring to preserve the life of the coma patient, or keeping the six month old child alive.

The unborn baby (if not a slave) is certainly a second class citizen here. He has less legal right to live than the criminal, the coma patient, his slightly older sibling, and even the complete stranger involved in an accident.

What gives?

stripsqueez
04-05-2004, 09:29 AM
some of your reasoning is so silly that its hard to explain how it is flawed

i dont know the good arguments that are pro this form of "slavery" - i dont think boys should get a vote

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

J.R.
04-05-2004, 09:41 AM
I hate this issue and can't make up my mind. Some countering perspectives.

"Do you have a responsibility to remove his head from the water so he can breath?"

Not legally.

"If we did not lift a finger to help a six month old baby to survive, he would certainly die of neglect. And you would go to jail."

Are you sure that is the case? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif I really doubt it unless you have a duty as a parent or legal gaurdian.

"The unborn baby (if not a slave) is certainly a second class citizen here."

Rightly or wrongly, many would argue you have to be a person before you can be a citizen.

"has a future as a self-reliant individual"

This is what those in favor of your general idealogy like to present as the crux of the disagreeement. This is what those against often argue is an illogical presuppostion.

"that baby can be killed at the whim of their "owner""

Rightly or wrongly, that is a narrow minded approach. While symbiotic is not the right word, there is a pretty significant cause and effect relationship between "owner" and "baby" that is more complicated than you present.

scalf
04-05-2004, 10:31 AM
you all should see the new 3-d colour-enhanced ultrasound pictures of the baby developing; my now five month old baby waved and smiled at her parents during the 3rd trimester..

a lovely site..

gl /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gamblor
04-05-2004, 10:42 AM
It's quite simple:

An unborn baby is not entitled to life because it is not aware of its own life. Self-awareness is the defining human characteristic.

Human life begins at birth, not conception.

The obvious counter argument would question the respect of animals despite non-self-awareness.

Animals are different, because they sustain the world that provides life for humans.

Thus, we must respect animals/plants/etc, because without them, humans would not continue to survive - it only follows that while animals may not be sentient and self-aware, they nonetheless require human respect for their roles in the ecosphere.

Ultimately, this argument only proves that humans are nothing more than self-aware animals. It's the same reason sex feels good, we find babies cute, and we care for our elderly:

It's all biological imperative. Sex is good because we need incentive to pro-create. Babies are cute because we're hard-wired to perpetuate the species, and it's easier to care for cute things than ugly things. We care for our elderly for what they can provide and what they have already provided: wisdom and experience that makes our own lives easier. And babies who are unborn are not yet babies, and since they aren't cute, only the Christian religious camp, which has never really let logic define itself, has any reason to demand their life.

elwoodblues
04-05-2004, 10:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
An unborn baby is not entitled to life because it is not aware of its own life. Self-awareness is the defining human characteristic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think they are unaware? Also, what makes you think that they become aware at birth? I think that self-awareness might very well be a good defining characteristic of life, but I think your attachment of that characteristic to birth seems a bit arbitrary.

superleeds
04-05-2004, 12:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
An unborn baby is not entitled to life because it is not aware of its own life. Self-awareness is the defining human characteristic

[/ QUOTE ]

New born babies are not immediately self aware.



[ QUOTE ]
Human life begins at birth, not conception

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere inbetween. Unborn babies are receptive to certain stimuli at least during the 3rd trimester. Shine a simple torch on the mothers belly and the unborn child may respond.

andyfox
04-05-2004, 12:39 PM
Does human life begin at conception?

Zeno
04-05-2004, 12:51 PM
I think, (someone can check) that sentient life or self-awareness’ begins sometime in the womb in the third trimester. It may or may not be defined legally as the onset of brainwave patterns in the fetus but it is something that can be measured with accuracy and certainly can be augured as a reasonable scientific definition. Previous to the ‘turning on of the brain’ the fetus is essentially a growth with no real independence from the host. I remember reading about this long ago in some reference to abortion and other matters. It is one compelling reason that the Supreme Court did not allow abortions in the third trimester. Now this is old and partially recollected information and I don't know if things have changed in any scientific or legal sense. But this is a good starting point.

-Zeno

blackaces13
04-05-2004, 01:02 PM
A baby is not aware of its own existence either. I'd say the first time I was self aware I was probably 3 or 4. Six month old babies have no idea that they are alive or what life is.

jdl22
04-05-2004, 01:06 PM
Adults seem to have trouble knowing what life is as well. It's one big poker game for crying out loud!

Boris
04-05-2004, 01:10 PM
The Navajo or the Hopi (I can't remember which) seemed to share your view. In that culture you didn't become "human" until you had the ability to speak. This was several hundred years ago when infant mortality was very high so the belief made practical sense. Both cultures have since evolved so I'm not sure about the modern belief of when one becomes human.

jdl22
04-05-2004, 01:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Lets face it, an unborn baby is human (check the DNA), has a future as a self-reliant individual (unlike a brain-dead coma patient), and is innocent of any crime. Yet that baby can be killed at the whim of their "owner", while we will preserve the life of the coma patient (who has no future), and the criminal, and cherish the life of the six month old. Does this make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a problem. Having human DNA does not imply that you're human. All of the following have human DNA and aren't human: hair in your shower drain, urine, human corpses.

As for the issue you raise, people that think that abortion is murder just as me killing a human would be believe that future potential life is equal to present life (note that I said think, I'm excluding people against abortion simply because their religious leaders say so). The same goes for neglecting a fetus via lack of nutrition doctor visits etc. At some point it boils down to axioms. If one of your axioms is that potential and kinetic energy are the same so to speak then you are surely of the opinion you describe. That seems to be the case given the language you used in your post (citizen etc.). I personally am not of this opinion.

The problem with abortion is that it is such a highly polemic issue that people on both sides are hypocritical or at least make contradictory arguments. Let me give you an example on both sides:

anti-abortion people are against abortion "except in cases of rape or incest." If you think abortion is murder, how is one person's rape justifaction for anothers murder. We have the death penalty in this country but the children of criminals don't pay the price. Bush has said that he is prolife but doesn't think abortion has high priority. If doctors are murdering hundreds or thousands of babies every year what should have higher priority?

Pro choice people oversimplify the argument by saying "it's my body I can do with it what I please" just as I think you have oversimplified the argument by saying a fetus is a human. This seems ludicrous, it's not just your body nor is it a full bodied human. Furthermore many pro choice people say that someone that murders a pregnant woman should be charged with two murders. Seems strange.

fluff
04-05-2004, 01:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The unborn baby (if not a slave) is certainly a second class citizen here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically to this quote, an unborn baby is not a citizen. In the US (and virtually all other countries I think) you recieve citizenship at birth not at conception.

ChristinaB
04-05-2004, 02:55 PM
Do you have something against Mothers?

Last week you say Mothers have condemned us to die.
This week you say Mothers are slave owners.

What do the "evil" Mothers have in store for us next week?

Clarkmeister
04-05-2004, 03:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Does human life begin at conception?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Gamblor
04-05-2004, 03:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does human life begin at conception?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow that was so easy.

What's all the fighting about?

MaxPower
04-05-2004, 03:12 PM
I agree. Let's ban dog ownership.

El Barto
04-05-2004, 03:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does human life begin at conception?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is self-evident to any logical person. Human life must be 1) alive, 2) human. And to to be aware it must 3) have a functional brain. Human tissue obviously doesn't qualify - that was just a jdl22 red herring.

El Barto
04-05-2004, 03:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's quite simple:

An unborn baby is not entitled to life because it is not aware of its own life. Self-awareness is the defining human characteristic.

Human life begins at birth, not conception.

The obvious counter argument would question the respect of animals despite non-self-awareness.

Animals are different, because they sustain the world that provides life for humans.

Thus, we must respect animals/plants/etc, because without them, humans would not continue to survive - it only follows that while animals may not be sentient and self-aware, they nonetheless require human respect for their roles in the ecosphere.

Ultimately, this argument only proves that humans are nothing more than self-aware animals. It's the same reason sex feels good, we find babies cute, and we care for our elderly:

It's all biological imperative. Sex is good because we need incentive to pro-create. Babies are cute because we're hard-wired to perpetuate the species, and it's easier to care for cute things than ugly things. We care for our elderly for what they can provide and what they have already provided: wisdom and experience that makes our own lives easier. And babies who are unborn are not yet babies, and since they aren't cute, only the Christian religious camp, which has never really let logic define itself, has any reason to demand their life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gamblor, I was disappointed by this post.

You start with a series of assertions supported by no underlying facts or logic ("I say, therefore it is so").

Further, you may have noticed the thrust of this thread has had nothing to do with imposing religious beliefs - so why are you making this about the "Christian religious camp" pro or con?

What does your logic and your understanding of the science behind this issue make you believe? Thats what I would like to know.

Lets stay on topic - I know you can do better.

Respectfully,
El

superleeds
04-05-2004, 03:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Does human life begin at conception?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

Gamblor
04-05-2004, 03:54 PM
It's all my opinion, based on my Upper Canada College (http://www.ucc.on.ca) / International Baccaleaureate (http://www.ibo.org) high school education and assorted life experience.

First 3 years in Hebrew, last 2 years in english. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

You're right, it's a random smattering of my opinions on an issue about which I'm not particularly well-informed. After all, even a cactus responds to stimuli (i.e. ever notice that plants tilt toward the sun?), and they are certainly not sentient beings. The point is that my opinion is based on the assumption that one must be possess the traits of a living breathing human to be afforded the rights of a human. What they are, I'm not sure, as I've never met a fetus.

But stirring up the pot a little, I can do!

Frankly, I was under the impression that the pro-lifers in the States were driven by the Bible thumpers.

As for me, I'm definitely pro-life. I don't think people should die.

On Abortion, though, to each his own.

OT: Why, in your opinion do we "like" some things and "don't like" other things? It's all self-preservation (i.e., pleasure => comfort => safety => survival). We "don't like" getting punched, when people get in our space, getting fired.

It's all biologically hard-wired. We're not that different from each other - if we were, we wouldn't have survived this long.

sam h
04-05-2004, 03:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is self-evident to any logical person. Human life must be 1) alive, 2) human. And to to be aware it must 3) have a functional brain. Human tissue obviously doesn't qualify - that was just a jdl22 red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

But a functional brain doesn't develop until well into pregnancy.

Ultimately, there is no biological argument for treating a bunch of cells as a human being anywhere near conception. You can only talk about a potential human being, and this necessarily brings you into much more abstract territory.

daryn
04-05-2004, 04:02 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />

Human life begins at birth, not conception.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is pretty weak, and blatantly false. you're saying, say 8 1/2 months into a pregnancy, there is no human being inside another human being? you're saying it actually takes the act of exiting the womb to become human? come on man...

Gamblor
04-05-2004, 04:04 PM
Read my response to el Barto.

You're right. it's weak.

On the other hand, can you really call yourself human if you've never filled on the river against the nut flush?

daryn
04-05-2004, 04:06 PM
there i go again firing off responses before reading the whole thread /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

superleeds
04-05-2004, 04:18 PM
The metabolic view
There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.


The genetic view , clarkmeisters view
A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.


The embryological view
In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12.Such a view would allow contraception, "morning after pills", and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.

The nuerological view
Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions.

The ecological/technological view my view
This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted).

The immunological view
This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

The integrated physiological view
This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.

El Barto
04-05-2004, 04:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I was under the impression that the pro-lifers in the States were driven by the Bible thumpers.

As for me, I'm definitely pro-life. I don't think people should die.



[/ QUOTE ]

I find that in America, if you disagree with a position taken by a major Church or religious group, all you have to do is say "don't legislate the bible" or "seperation of church and state".

This is actually a phony argument. Just because someone's religious views inform one's opinions, doesn't invalidate those opinions. Since I am agnostic, I don't have this problem - but unlike many non-religious people I am not quick to dismiss a person's view just because it has a religious foundation.

After all, if we refused to ever "legislate from the bible", we couldn't criminalize murder. "Thou shalt not kill" is in the bible after all.

My hope is to have discussions based on logic and reason even if you originally came to your views because of your religious or non-religious background.

So, back to your statement, you would think that religion is the only reason abortion is opposed by anyone - when in fact (as this thread demonstrates) there are good scientific reasons for a pro-life position.

El Barto
04-05-2004, 05:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The metabolic view
There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.


The genetic view , clarkmeisters view
A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.


The embryological view
In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12.Such a view would allow contraception, "morning after pills", and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.

The nuerological view
Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions.

The ecological/technological view my view
This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted).

The immunological view
This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

The integrated physiological view
This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.


[/ QUOTE ]

nicely done.

I sometimes wonder if 50 to 100 years from now, we will all be saying "why did they debate abortion so much, it should be obvious that an unborn baby is a human being."

Just as we now say, "wasn't it obvious that African-Americans were people back then? and that slavery was wrong?"

andyfox
04-05-2004, 08:33 PM
So if a woman, who conceived the night before, takes a hot bath, or exercises virorously, or in some other way, unbeknown to her, kills the human life, she is a killer, and should be prosecuted?

Easy E
04-05-2004, 10:48 PM

Easy E
04-05-2004, 11:02 PM
When someone has the right to decide whether you live or die, and they can do so when you are a perfectly normal human being, solely at their own discretion, don't they in essense own you.
Does a murderer "own" his/her victims? Having power to end a life isn't the same as owning someone... and frankly, it doesn't take all that much power (ask any 10-year old "gangsta")

In the same way perhaps as you own a dog. You are innocent, you are healthy, but if I want I can kill you without being considered a murderer. This is slavery, yes?

No, that is one power that was assumed with slavery, or ownership of another person and their work.

Lets say you are walking down the street and you see a auto accident. The only person involved is ejected from the car and lands face down in a ditch filled with water. He is going to drown. Do you have a responsibility to remove his head from the water so he can breath?
Yes

If we did not lift a finger to help a six month old baby to survive, he would certainly die of neglect. And you would go to jail. Only if you were the parent. Otherwise, you would just be a worthless excuse for a human being. I can't print what I think of the parents who do this.

But if you are a mother, you can decree that your unborn baby will not have permission to live any more. The unborn baby is her slave.
I don't think "slave" fits here either, though it is an interesting connection to try and make. Can a fetus have free will and actions? I think slavery is more about taking those away (being able to end a life without punishment is only part of the concept of slavery/ownership)

Lets face it, an unborn baby is human (check the DNA), has a future as a self-reliant individual (unlike a brain-dead coma patient), and is innocent of any crime. Yet that baby can be killed at the whim of their "owner", while we will preserve the life of the coma patient (who has no future), and the criminal, and cherish the life of the six month old. Does this make sense?
Good points all. I say if you allow abortion, then you can't object to euthenasia or capital punishment, among others.

Yes, bearing a baby is a burden, and requires a sacrifice, but so does dragging the fellow out of the ditch, or laboring to preserve the life of the coma patient, or keeping the six month old child alive.
That depends on what you call a sacrifice and how you equate them. I don't see dragging from the ditch as any kind of sacrifice, nor really the coma patient scenario.

Having and raising a baby is a 20+ year commitment/sacrifice. Until we start making the fathers automatically committed to providing for those 20 years as well (and not just monetarily, either) it's a one-sided punishment to make women solely responsible.

The unborn baby (if not a slave) is certainly a second class citizen here. He has less legal right to live than the criminal, the coma patient, his slightly older sibling, and even the complete stranger involved in an accident.
By definition, you aren't a citizen unless you are born on this country's soil, or under its control. Therefore, NO fetus is a "citizen" of (USA?) here.

What gives?
A big long nasty argument with no easy answer for people.

But this was an interesting take on the subject.

Gamblor
04-06-2004, 09:47 AM
Since I am agnostic, I don't have this problem - but unlike many non-religious people I am not quick to dismiss a person's view just because it has a religious foundation.

I hope Cyrus is reading this.

He thinks I'm religious.

My hope is to have discussions based on logic and reason even if you originally came to your views because of your religious or non-religious background.

That's classic. No, my views on abortion are based on virtually no information at all. I just think until the baby is born, the mother takes responsibility for its care or lack thereof.