I've hesitated to post this thread, but someone has to speak out.

[GroverCleveland]

Same here. While my objection to the death penalty comes from distrust in the judicial system I don’t see how people can be pro-life and pro-state killing.

i have a substantial distrust if the justice system as well. However, when I see a fetus commit a crime like, for example, the Alday family murders in Seminole County, Georgia, I will become pro-abortion. I would have shot Carl Isaacs myself and paid for the bullet.

 

[85SugarVol]

No.

And unborn humans will not be subject to abortions permitted by the state.

But unborn humans will still be subject to abortion.

 

[85SugarVol]

i have a substantial distrust if the justice system as well. However, when I see a fetus commit a crime like, for example, the Alday family murders in Seminole County, Georgia, I will become pro-abortion. I would have shot Carl Isaacs myself and paid for the bullet.

Certainly. There have been plenty of men sent to Death Row for good reason.

There have also been plenty sent that were innocent of the charges.

We’re not very good at sorting them out.

 

[creekdipper]

But unborn humans will still be subject to abortion.

???? What's this "subject to" all about? Born humans will still be subject to being executed, too. Just not by the state, just as that same state would no longer condone abortions.

If your point is that both will still take place under different auspices and by different agencies, that much seens to be agreed upon by everyone. Illegal activities still go on despite laws prohibiting them. Is that your point?

 

[Septic]

What’s the basic definition of sentient we are working with?

The capacity to experience sensations and feelings.

For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.
It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed. Source

If you're looking to redefine or disagree with the definition of the term or try to create some sort of fuzzy gray areas around the periphery of the term, feel free to do so. Just know I'm not interested in arguing what's already been established.

 

[EasternVol]

????

Unclear as to your point. How would you get an abortion if it were illegal? The same way you could hire someone to kill someone for you? ????

Or are you just saying that the state wouldn't be involved?

???

You answered that in the next to last sentence of post 954.

 

[Vol8188]

The capacity to experience sensations and feelings.

For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.
It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed. Source

If you're looking to redefine or disagree with the definition of the term or try to create some sort of fuzzy gray areas around the periphery of the term, feel free to do so. Just know I'm not interested in arguing what's already been established.

Sure. I would agree it’s not sentient. Do we agree it is both alive and human?

 

[GroverCleveland]

Certainly. There have been plenty of men sent to Death Row for good reason.

There have also been plenty sent that were innocent of the charges.

We’re not very good at sorting them out.

I wouldn't say plenty, as only an occasional case or two comes to light over the years. And even those have been even more rare since the reinstatement of the death penalty. And I would agree those are too many, but would not agree the answer is do away with the death penalty, but to remedy the possibility of sentencing someone who is innocent in capital cases.

My mind can be changed on this. I have a pretty healthy distrust of our legal/justice system. I sure as heck am not interested in getting tangled up in it.

 

[deezvols]

The capacity to experience sensations and feelings.

For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.
It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed. Source

If you're looking to redefine or disagree with the definition of the term or try to create some sort of fuzzy gray areas around the periphery of the term, feel free to do so. Just know I'm not interested in arguing what's already been established.

Would you consider some who is unconscious or in a coma as sentient?

 

[Septic]

Sure. I would agree it’s not sentient. Do we agree it is both alive and human?

I'm not sure, I suppose it would depend on your definition of alive and human is.

beyond that - I'm not sure that makes much different though, sentience is where I draw the line. I abhor abortion, but my feeling shouldn't get in the way of a healthcare decision between a woman and her physician.

 

[Septic]

Would you consider some who is unconscious or in a coma as sentient?

No.

 

[deezvols]

I'm not sure, I suppose it would depend on your definition of alive and human is.

beyond that - I'm not sure that makes much different though, sentience is where I draw the line. I abhor abortion, but my feeling shouldn't get in the way of a healthcare decision between a woman and her physician.

My point is sentience can’t be used as an argument for it “not being murder” when no one in their right mind would suggest killing unconscious people or those in a coma the same way we kill babies.
Abortion is a terrible excuse for immature people to avoid the consequences of their actions.
“My body my choice”? Your choice was sex….. live with it.

 

[deezvols]

No.

So can we kill them the same way we kill “zygotes”?

 

[ButchPlz]

So can we kill them the same way we kill “zygotes”?

No joke but most of the leftoids I know in-person are A-OK with euthanizing/pulling the plug on people in vegetative states. It's heinous but at least they're consistent in their disdain for human life.

 

[Septic]

My point is sentience can’t be used as an argument for it “not being murder” when no one in their right mind would suggest killing unconscious people or those in a coma the same way we kill babies.
Abortion is a terrible excuse for immature people to avoid the consequences of their actions.
“My body my choice”? Your choice was sex….. live with it.

You're conflating different circumstances, there's a difference and distinction between an unconscious person and a undeveloped fetus. I simply asked if a zygote was sentient.

If people felt as strongly about the welfare of unwanted children outside of the womb as they do about the unborn fetus still in it, there wouldn't be a problem. Instead, the same groups of people who rail against the immorality of abortion largely disappear when it's time to help prop these unwanted kids up.

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by the moral high ground you and your ilk claim to hold.

 

[deezvols]

You're conflating different circumstances, there's a difference and distinction between an unconscious person and a undeveloped fetus. I simply asked if a zygote was sentient.

If people felt as strongly about the welfare of unwanted children outside of the womb as they do about the unborn fetus still in it, there wouldn't be a problem. Instead, the same groups of people who rail against the immorality of abortion largely disappear when it's time to help prop these unwanted kids up.

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by the moral high ground you and your ilk claim to hold.

”you’re not willing to claim ownership of someone else’s child so we should let them kill it” is a terrible argument.
You’re arguing in circles and trying to use big words to make your argument sound intelligent, yet another sign of a bad argument.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm not sure, I suppose it would depend on your definition of alive and human is.

beyond that - I'm not sure that makes much different though, sentience is where I draw the line. I abhor abortion, but my feeling shouldn't get in the way of a healthcare decision between a woman and her physician.

Honeslty, I think that’s fair for the most part. I would support a line closer to a heartbeat, but accept there’s gray area.

My issue was more with the other posters pretending it’s not alive, and it’s not human.

 

[Septic]

”you’re not willing to claim ownership of someone else’s child so we should let them kill it” is a terrible argument.
You’re arguing in circles and trying to use big words to make your argument sound intelligent, yet another sign of a bad argument.

Big words? LOL

I didn't "argue" for killing a "child", in fact I already stated that I hated abortion. Frankly, I think you lashing out after turning a blind eye to that fact is you recognizing my point is valid and you're simply looking to distract from it.

Where did I suggest you had to take "ownership?" If you feel the need to employ hyperbole to make your point, then your point wasn't worth making. I'm just noting that the moral high ground you think you have is an illusion.

When you do as much for the welfare of a child post birth as you'd have us believe you're doing for the fetus reaches an equilibrium, then you can lecture other people. Until then, you're all bark.

 

[deezvols]

Big words? LOL

I didn't "argue" for killing a "child", in fact I already stated that I hated abortion. Frankly, I think you lashing out after turning a blind eye to that fact is you recognizing my point is valid and you're simply looking to distract from it.

Where did I suggest you had to take "ownership?" If you feel the need to employ hyperbole to make your point, then your point wasn't worth making. I'm just noting that the moral high ground you think you have is an illusion.

When you do as much for the welfare of a child post birth as you'd have us believe you're doing for the fetus reaches an equilibrium, then you can lecture other people. Until then, you're all bark.

You argue is circles as to distract from your bad arguments.
Believe me, I’m just as much against killing toddlers as I am “zygotes”.

 

[Septic]

You argue is circles as to distract from your bad arguments.
Believe me, I’m just as much against killing toddlers as I am “zygotes”.

What argumentative "circle" are you claiming I'm making? Specifically.

Thus far, I've simply pointed out I'm not impressed with the anti-abortion morality signalers since they all seem to disappear when the going gets tough for the kids they've thumped their chest about saving.

Admitting there's a problem is the first step.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Praise the Lord! Praying for a national ban of murdering children to come soon

 

[EasternVol]

The capacity to experience sensations and feelings.

For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.
It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed. Source

If you're looking to redefine or disagree with the definition of the term or try to create some sort of fuzzy gray areas around the periphery of the term, feel free to do so. Just know I'm not interested in arguing what's already been established.

There you go using science again

 

[deezvols]

Claiming I’m on a moral high ground because I oppose the killing of babies while also claiming you “hate abortion” for one. Also, your argument on “abandoning after birth” seems to be “it’s ok to kill them since people are ‘abandoning’ them”. Is the fact that they’re alive not enough?

 

[Septic]

Claiming I’m on a moral high ground because I oppose the killing of babies while also claiming you “hate abortion” for one. Also, your argument on “abandoning after birth” seems to be “it’s ok to kill them since people are ‘abandoning’ them”. Is the fact that they’re alive not enough?

You're conflating my point in order to justify your position, please stop. I've not made the argument that it's "OK to kill them", this is a position you've ginned up for me that you clearly feel supports a presupposition that you're right and I'm wrong.

The moral high ground perpetuated by the anti-abortion crowd rings hollow when the care about the welfare of the child seems to largely cease immediately after birth. This is the entirety of my point, stop trying to make up an argument for me because I've pointed out something that's inconvenient for you to rationalize.

 

[Vol8188]

What argumentative "circle" are you claiming I'm making? Specifically.

Thus far, I've simply pointed out I'm not impressed with the anti-abortion morality signalers since they all seem to disappear when the going gets tough for the kids they've thumped their chest about saving.

Admitting there's a problem is the first step.

Do you believe you're morally obligated to care for anyone who you do not believe should be put down? I imagine neither of us support putting down the homeless or mentally ill, yet neither of us are taking them in off the streets. Because you seem to have a different standard when it comes to abortion.

I also imagine if the parties were seeking compromise the right would gladly accept increased spending to lower the cost of adoption in return for increased restrictions on abortions.