Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[Feisty Mouse]

Wouldn't this argument allow parents to kill newborns, since they arguably haven't been socialized with culture and language yet, and therefore aren't, according to these standards, human? The very few but still intriguing "wild child" cases also come to mind; I've seen two documentaries of kids who have grown up without socialization--no language, no culture, wild children. Where would they fit in?

No - since they are living independently outside of the mother's body - they are a living individual, and as such, are protected by the law.

"Wild child" cases are intriguing, it's true, but still are their own existing individuals. Of course, there was a period of time in our recent human history where people with learning disabilities, or physical disabilities, were considered "less human", but we're learning to go beyond that.

 

[Tgace]

Once you start saying "anything after X date is just wrong and should not be allowed" (which we have, anyways), you can start moving the line in the sand. That worries me.

What worries me is a system of thought that "theoretically" states a fetus should be able to be legally aborted right up to its birthdate. Minus medical emergency I would "draw a line in the sand". Where? I dont honestly know....

 

[heretic888]

This has been an excellent discussion, ladies and gents. I have learned quite a bit, and the ideas put forward have challenged my previous preconceptions about the issue (I must add that feisty mouse has probably put forward the most intriguing food for thought).

Please, keep it comin'. :asian: :asian: :asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

:xtrmshock :asian:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No - since they are living independently outside of the mother's body - they are a living individual, and as such, are protected by the law.

"Wild child" cases are intriguing, it's true, but still are their own existing individuals. Of course, there was a period of time in our recent human history where people with learning disabilities, or physical disabilities, were considered "less human", but we're learning to go beyond that.

Agreed, but I brought those up in the contexts of robertson's socialization standard. I'd like to know how he explains those away...I mean, accounts for them.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

What worries me is a system of thought that "theoretically" states a fetus should be able to be legally aborted right up to its birthdate. Minus medical emergency I would "draw a line in the sand". Where? I dont honestly know....

Careful, Tgace, your subconscious desire to control all women is starting to appear. :lol:

 

[heretic888]

Agreed, but I brought those up in the contexts of robertson's socialization standard. I'd like to know how he explains those away...I mean, accounts for them.

Well, if I may interject, I don't believe Robert was referring to "language" and "culture" in the formal sense.

 

[Tgace]

Careful, Tgace, your subconscious desire to control all women is starting to appear. :lol:

Yeah..that approach has been working SOOOOO well for me up to this point...:shrug:

 

[shesulsa]

What worries me is a system of thought that "theoretically" states a fetus should be able to be legally aborted right up to its birthdate. Minus medical emergency I would "draw a line in the sand". Where? I dont honestly know....

Could the fact that we are bothered by it be the price we must pay for the "necessary evil?"

I want to address Robertson. Bob, I want to say again, that I really appreciate your passion about the whole subconscious male power-over thing. It could be that we all (myself included ) get so passionate about that which we believe so firmly. I commend you for raising the issue in the first place - I was actually a tad worried it might be neglected here.

However, I have read every post now on this thread and I think everyone is really trying very hard to earnestly discuss, discover, debate and ponder over this terrible puzzle. And really, if one is spiritual by any means, it is terrible no matter which side of the fence one stakes claim.

I really respect everyone who has posted for 1. having the guts to get involved in this discussion at all and 2. for doing your utmost to be considerate of others here. This has been fascinating.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well, if I may interject, I don't believe Robert was referring to "language" and "culture" in the formal sense.

Well, what other meaning could there be? Even in the most general terms, I myself can't think of any meaning to language and culture that wouldn't be lacking in the wild child examples, nor a newborn who's yet to acquire socialization.

 

[heretic888]

Well, what other meaning could there be? Even in the most general terms, I myself can't think of any meaning to language and culture that wouldn't be lacking in the wild child examples, nor a newborn who's yet to acquire socialization.

"Language" doesn't necessarily mean you speak Spanish, and "culture" doesn't necessarily mean you identify yourself as a Chinese person. Those are both rather formal, and limited, definitions of the words.

Whether we are talking biology or psychology here (and by no means are they mutually exclusive), the whole idea behind both "language" and "culture" capacities is that the organism has differentiated him or herself from "the world" to a competent enough degree that we could actually describe there being a pseudo-independent "self" or "individual". In other words, what most people generally call "sentience" or "self-awareness".

Just look at this way --- our hominid ancestors didn't just "learn" things like English and a particular cultural worldview the way we do; it wasn't just taught to them by their parents. At some point in human history, these things developed as an evolutionary adaptation (or "divine intervention", if that's your thing). What set apart those early homo sapiens from all the other bipedal primates running around the globe was not that they had language and culture, but that they had the capacity or ability to create and use their own language and culture.

Can you honestly say that a fetus is capable of learning any language?? Or, developing any worldview?? Can you honestly say that a fetus is truly an individual, sentience and all??

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I see. The distinction between language & culture and the capacity for them is a good point. And these are based on the development of sentient awareness, which is the separation between human and hunk of genetic material inside a womb, I think I can buy that.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I cannot buy any into reason that allows a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child as his/her head emerges from the womb! Sounds like murder!

 

[Flatlander]

I cannot buy any into reason that allows a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child as his/her head emerges from the womb! Sounds like murder!

1. I don't really think anybody is saying this is a good idea.
2. I don't think that you have grasped the generally accepted format of debate that we use in the Study. Posters try to put forth an idea, supported by reasoning and logic. Usually, should another choose to counter the proposition, they will refute using reason and logic. References supporting any facts quoted are often a good idea as well.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

What kind of format excuses this kind of murder?

 

[Flatlander]

What kind of format excuses this kind of murder?

What or whom are you arguing here, Mr. Harbers? What kind of murder? Are you refuting any particular position or are you imagining one?

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I cannot imagine killing a child as it is being born. Only white people can be that cruel.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I cannot imagine killing a child as it is being born. Only white people can be that cruel.

Has anyone on this thread, or in fact anyone else, advocated this?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Right, let's throw the race card into this already-controvercial enough thread.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Damn sure wasn't me. I think the phrase "straw-man argument" applies here quite well.