The Abortion Ministry of Dr. Willie Parker

No, all animals have certain rights. I cannot and should not be cruel to my dog, and rightfully it is against the law.

Would it be better if we could get through life without killing animals for food? Yes. It would be far better. But it is very hard to feed everyone without meat. I have a moral dilemma every time I eat a Wendy's Burger, and I am not going to lie about it.

Primates (particularly the Great Apes) should definitely have the right to life. Does that mean we need to go in, set up a Gorilla Lodge? Of course not, but we should not allow them to be hunted.

 

Does a newborn? It will have reflexive needs to eat, suckle, grab with its hands and feet, hold its breath, etc. But they are simply reflexes, not wants and desires.

IP, you have said EEG or GTFO. And I can understand that particular stance. So, at what point should abortions be called infanticide in your book? 25 weeks? 30? Birth?

 

If life is not the issue, then why do you continually use this scenario?

 

I have consistently said that EEG's would be on the cautious side. I personally think the still aren't persons beyond that, but until there is an EEG I am saying it is empirically impossible for them to be any more aware than a bump on a log. I'm saying anything before 25 weeks is DEFINITELY not killing a person. They are no more a person than an egg or sperm is.

Now, I don't see how something can be infanticide without an infant being involved. Which means birth.


As to your point on infants: they definitely have wants in a biological sense that distinguish them from a fetus, and you mentioned them: food, breathing, etc. That is significant, in a biological, "life" sense.

 

He is saying clearly that the idea of life being sacred is so obviously not the case. It stops being so sacred to many pro-lifers once it is out of the womb and isn't part of their nationality, or is stealing from them, or murdered one of their loved ones, etc. We know that life isn't sacred once the rubber meets the road, and he is arguing the rubber never stops meeting the road.

 

My opinions are absolutely not motivated by religion.

 

That makes more sense, but I can't say that I agree. I still do not believe the analogy is adequate.

We punish the murderer. Life is therefore sacred or at least highly valued by society.

We allow death in the face of life that is far, far less than what we believe life is meant to be. Although this is highly subjective, it also demonstrates a valuing of life since it extinguishs a mockery of it.

The last point would bring us back around to the what is life question. Is an embryo a life? Is a fetus, or are these also something less?

I've been trying to stay out of this thread as these usually end similarly.

 

But by emotion. You said your view changed when your child was born.

 

Your point of what is a life is an important one. That is why I speak of personhood, consciousness, being, etc. Because a human cell is "life," but not a person. There must be a time when that changes, which is really the crux of the issue. There are all sorts of different ways of dealing with that. Some say life starts at or even before conception. Some say when cells begin to differentiate into specific organ tissues, others when major brain function begins, others when the fetus can survive out of the womb if it were removed (moving target these days), others when it is born/outside of the womb. In ancient times, a newborn wasn't fully a person until it survived a month outside the womb.

 

no it changed when I saw the ultrasounds. I wouldn't consider that emotion. quite the opposite. my view changed with more information. I of course had an idea as to how a child developed, but I can't say I really thought about it much.

 

So from an image? Okay. An image changed your view. Did it teach you about how a fetus develops?


I'm being a [penis]. Sorry. It is a difficult issue because I can't understand the perspective of fetus= human being.

 

of course it taught me. and it's a moving image. and each week it changed with more obvious features or things the doctor pointed out. I never claimed to be a biologist.

I can't understand the perspective that it's not a human till it comes out of the vagina. most of the things we define as "human" are evident well before birth. if you want to tell me two cells are not human I'm there with you. if you want to tell me a fetus with a brain, lungs, hands, fingers, toes, and a penis isn't human I can't understand that. It's a rationalization.

 

The only thing that matters for personhood is a brain. I couldn't care less about whether it has formed lungs, hands, fingers, toes, genitals, etc. No functioning brain, no person.

 

ok so you are against abortions in the second trimester?

http://main.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ#fetus

 

If you go back to the first page of the thread, you will see I directly addressed this with the 25 weeks thing.

From your link, though:

So, no. I am not against abortions in the second trimester.

 

so it sounds like you do agree there should be a limit then since many a child has these things function before birth. so all you and I are debating is the timing.

 

I don't know how I could be any more clear about my position. Personhood. All about the personhood.

 

the definition of "personhood" isn't clear to me.

 

quoted.

so once again. we are simply debating the date.

 

That's being on the safe side. I am saying anything before that is literally baseless in terms of being an individual. That also doesn't mean I am in disagreement with float and voldad, whose responses have had nothing to do with this aspect of the conversation (personhood).