@ fulhamish- "Well there is always the person in a comatose state completely dependent on the support of machinery and nursing staff. Scissors through the top of the spinal cord anyone? "

Involuntary, of course not, but (although I think you really can't generalize such a case) without going in too much detail on it I believe that euthanasia should not immediately be dismissed if (a) the person is (or was, in the case of a coma patient) suffering intolerably without possible improvement (b) the person has indicated before going into coma that he wishes to request euthanasia and (c) the person is (was) fully aware of his/her condition and has made a well-informed decision which has been consistent over a longer period of time. Euthanasia is a far more complicated concept than abortion though, in my opinion.

@ Mr rb. Does the patient's complete and utter dependance on the lifre support systems, electricity supply, nurses etc, have any bearing on his right to life, particularly as he is a non-sentinent being? After all surely there is an opportunity cost and those resources might be ''chosen'' to be better employed elsewhere. I guess that I am making a pro-choice argument to pull the plug on that supposed non-sentinent being who is really not one of us. On the other hand perhaps I believe that all human life is precious and worthy of respect.

Now I know what you guys are going to say - Hang on a minute Fulhamish by any creterior that foetus is a lot more sentinent than the guy in the coma. That ''thing'' responds to music, its mother's voice, posses a sense of touch and maybe ones of smell and tastre too. That comparison you make just doesn't stand up. If you did point those things out to me I would have to conceed that you would be 100 % correct.

"On the other hand perhaps I believe that all human life is precious and worthy of respect."

Except women. They are uteruses with legs whose health and life is of no concern.

well said Putin.

@ Fulhamish- no, if the patient wishes he could stay hooked on those systems until he dies a natural death; I don't think resources spent are an issue at all, he has the same right to live as any one. However, if the patient has indicated he prefers the plug to be pulled in case he enters a coma, I believe that should be his right as well. Since it's his life to spend I think his wishes should be respected. I for one, if I were in such a situation, would prefer euthanasia over prolonged dependency on machines with no chance of recovery.

As far as the comparison to abortion- I think the two subjects are hardly comparable apart from the fact that both abortion and euthanasia promote pro-choice for the person mostly affected by the happening, being respectively the mother and the patient. I agree with you that all human life is precious and worth of respect, and I feel that that respect should also be extended to any choices individuals make regarding their own well-being and future.

@Marti
So it seems as though we have reached the point in the argument where a woman's health should be the sole creterior for deciding on whether abortion should occur. Sex selection then, for example, should not be a creterior? How about comparatively minor deformities such as cleft lip/palette, presumably it is a no there also?

@ Mr rb Abortion and euthanasia on the commotose are comparable if one follows the arguments about sentience to their logical conclusions. I repeat:
''That ''thing'' responds to music, its mother's voice, posses a sense of touch and maybe ones of smell and taste too.''

@ orathiac
''Not that i think this downside should prevent the idea, it could well be made part of a sex ed class, though unfortunately i think it would be even harder to get a balanced merely informative documentary to be required reading for any school.''

I fully agree that there would be difficulties in making an accurate and unbiased film/television documentary on abortion. Then again this applies to much else too and it does not stop these programs being made. I have seen programs on euthanasia clinics in Switzerland, I am sure that you have too. The main thing is that, as a society having this debate, we should see what abortion actually involves.

Sigh, @ fulhamish, not that euthanasia is universally wrong, but there is an important distinction here, in that the comatose person is not LIVING INSIDE THE BODY OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. Surely this minor point has not escaped your notice.

@Mafialligator, but surely you wouldn't take that as all-controlling either, if you really believed that the thing had the same rights as other humans, intrinistically. That, I think, is the issue we're currently exploring. (Why it doesn't).

Wait, why what thing doesn't have the same rights as other humans? A fetus? Because as I've said a bunch of times before, a fetus is in no meaningful sense of the word, a "person". It may be a form of human life, (as is a flaked off skin cell) but it does not have "personhood". That's why. The fact of it's lack of personhood, coupled with the fact that it exists inside the body of a person who has the right to determine what happens to her own body, makes abortion acceptable. I'm sorry if you disagree, but until you tell me about a fetus you know really well, a fetus who's personality you've really gotten to know, a fetus you'd consider a close friend, I think I kinda have a point on the "not really a person" thing.

So we subtly move from creterior of sentience to one of ''personhood''. I think that we need to take some time and think about this new magic key to life which Mafia now introduces into the argument - personhood.

Obviously whether semck can or cannot have a relationship with something is not the actual definition of a person either. I was being facetious in saying that to illustrate a point.
I really honestly can't believe that semck, fulhamish et al. see no difference between their neighbours, relatives, friends, coworkers, etc. and a partially developed fetus inside someone's womb, without conscious thought or self awareness. It seems to me that they're assuming that the terms "person" and "human" are co-extensive.

@ fulhamish - I have, up till now, given a rough definition of "personhood" in my discussions of the matter with semck. I'm not entirely happy with it, I think what I mean by "personhood" includes more than these things, but they are all at least necessary components to "personhood": sentience (so far you have been using sentience alone as sufficient to define something as a person), sapience and self awareness (something a great deal of animals lack).

At any rate, you accuse me of moving the goalposts having been fine up till now with sentience and then suddenly saying "no no, it's 'personhood' that matters." this is of course not the case. I encourage you to read several of the pages before this one, you'll notice I almost always, in talking to semck say "sentience, sapience and self awareness" in defining necessary characteristics of a "person", and as I recall, I have said this several times.

I realize the last three posts in a row are mine, but I really think I'm going to give up on this debate, and I just want to get this last point in. It's clear to me I'm running into a brick wall of belief in trying to argue about personhood. Obviously semck and fulhamish see fetuses as "people" (note, "person" is not the same thing as "human") in some way that escapes me, but that is obviously very important to them.

But this is what I have to say. What they consistently fail to understand is that even if you think a fetus is as much of a person as you are or I am, there is still a second moral issue at question here. The question of reproductive freedom. Yes, I am aware that after an abortion there will be one fewer life in the world than there possibly would have been had the pregnancy been carried to term. But, even if you take the pro-life position that human life begins at conception, and that a zygote is as much a person and deserves life as much as an 8 year old or a 32 year old or what have you, you still can't lose sight of the fact that allowing abortion gives women the freedom to choose what happens to their own bodies, something men simply don't have to deal with in the same way. Even if you feel that the supposed moral evil of killing a fetus vastly outweighs the moral good of creating reproductive freedom, you still need to consider the impact of the latter, even if you ultimately decide it does not compare to your other concern. And the fact of the matter is that semck and fulhamish consistently ignore this concern altogether. Naturally this is not their concern as they are both coming down very much on the pro-life side of the debate, and forgive me for saying this, a position of male privilege. And yet their approach to the issue very much mirrors that of conservative pro-life politics in North America. The discussion with them becomes entirely about the status of the fetus to such an extent that it becomes easy to forget that a fetus by definition is LIVING INSIDE OF A WOMAN who is also very much relevant to the issue at hand. I'm not necessarily saying you have to take a woman's side in this, but you have to at least try to imagine what it must be like to have something growing inside you whether you like it or not.
Having said this, I think I'm going to sign out of this debate. If it continues for a while I may stick my head back in and see if things have gone anywhere interesting. But I don't think I will be participating in the same degree I have been up till now.
For the record however I would like to restate my position on abortion and say that it has not changed.
I believe that the matter of having an abortion is up to the discretion of the woman in question. It is my express intent that you read abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, performed in any of the generally medically accepted ways of carrying out abortions. (Please note this excludes fulhamish's completely made up category of "live birth abortions" whereby women give birth to live babies which are then killed.)

''I really honestly can't believe that semck, fulhamish et al. see no difference between their neighbours, relatives, friends, coworkers, etc. and a partially developed fetus inside someone's womb, without conscious thought or self awareness.''

Mafia, may I ask why do you qualify the word foetus with ''partially''. What were you trying to get across with the employment of this word. I am honestly not nit picking here, but ask in attempt to fully understand your argument, particularly in the light of your previous comments.

''I have, up till now, given a rough definition of "personhood" in my discussions of the matter with semck.''

I fully apologise if I have misunderstood and caused you to unnecssarily repeat yourself.
You have had my views about sentience already with the coma patient and foetus comparison (I await your response on this). As to sapience and self awareness, I wonder if you hold to the view that they appear at the instant of birth, as this would be consistent with your argument? I somehow doubt this, I understood that the consensus was that they take months, if not a small number of years to fully develop, especially with the latter. So we come back, as usual, to the question of where to draw that ''personhood'' line, only this time we appear to be moving the discussion forward to post-birth creterior.

@ Mafia I thought that you would be interested in this:
''PROSTAGLANDIN ABORTION; Prostaglandin is a chemical hormone which induces violent labor and premature birth when injected into the amniotic sac. Since prostaglandin results in an unusually high percentage of live births, salt, urea or another toxin is often injected first. The risk of live birth from a prostaglandin abortion is so great that its use is recommended only in hospitals with neonatal intensive care units. The risk to the mother is also greater with the use of prostaglandin; complications can include cardiac arrest.''

Now I bet you are wondering where I got the information from arn't you? Well here it is:

http://www.prochoice.com/abort_how.html

Some good stuff there about post-16 week saline poisoning too, if you can bring yourself to read it.

Ugh, and less than five minutes later I'm forced to reply, because once again you completely ignore the issue I am trying desperately to bring back into the debate.
"I wonder if you hold to the view that they appear at the instant of birth, as this would be consistent with your argument?" - Of course they don't. That would be absurd. But at the moment of birth the fetus is no longer living INSIDE OF A WOMAN'S BODY. There is no longer any impact on the matter of allowing people to decide what happens to their own bodies and so of course there would be no intention of doing anything to the baby, because doing so would no longer serve any purpose.
This for the record also constitutes my response to the question about the comparison to the comatose patient. The patient is not living inside of someone else's body, thus the matter of euthanizing this person has no bearing on our current discussion (and my views on euthanasia are not relevant here).

As for my use of the term "partially developed" you can ignore that if you like, and my intention in writing that sentence is not changed in any real way. Pretend it says "...etc. and a fetus inside someone's womb, without conscious though or self awareness."

@Mafialligator, I understand you don't plan to reply again, and that's fine, but I'll go ahead and reply to the points you've raised.

"Wait, why what thing doesn't have the same rights as other humans? A fetus? Because as I've said a bunch of times before, a fetus is in no meaningful sense of the word, a "person"."

No, I get that that's what you believe. My point was just this: you were complaining that we shouldn't be talking about the above issues at all because it's still in another human being's body. My point was that that point probably only really works if you already believe (as you DO) that it does not deserve human rights. That's why it's worth discussing that point, even quite aside from whether it's in another human's body. Not WHETHER (I know what you think there), but WHY it is not a human being.

"I'm sorry if you disagree, but until you tell me about a fetus you know really well, a fetus who's personality you've really gotten to know, a fetus you'd consider a close friend, I think I kinda have a point on the "not really a person" thing. "

Well, there aren't any month-old infants I consider close friends either, but I certainly believe they're people who deserve to be protected just as much as anybody else.

So I guess I'll have to reject that criterion.

Finally, you close by saying you don't think I've even considered the freedom to a woman and the weight it should carry. I can see why you might think this; I'v ementioned it hardly at all. It's not true that I haven't considered it, though. It's just that, believing a fetus is a person, I don't think it's even a vaguely hard argument or one that takes more than 10 seconds of thought to decide that the other rights don't outweigh its right to life. It's like I believe that men have the right to do what they want with their organs, but that doesn't mean they have the right to rape women.

As for freedom: it's true that this "frees up" women, but it's also not like -- except in the case of rape, which is certainly the hard case -- the infant isn't the result of a free decision on their part, one that they needn't have made. Decisions all carry weight. I, as a man, did not decide how biology would work, or who would be born a woman.

Suppose you did decide that fetuses were persons, but still decided to privilege women's rights over their right to life. You would be choosing one group over another just as surely as you say I am privileging the rights of men over those of women. I say I am privileging the right of every human (and person) not to be murdered over the rights of any group to find "freedom" through killing.

Despite it's URL that website's pro-choice credentials are EXTREMELY SUSPECT. I call shenanigans. It's quite clearly aimed to discourage women from getting abortions. A few choice quotes to illustrate my point:

"Abortion... How much does it cost?
The ultimate price, your baby's life, your self esteem and maybe your life.
The financial cost can be very little to a lot. Rarely discussed is the hidden costs after the fact."

"Are you really protected?
Realize that when those who say they support women and 'their right to choose' are not really doing that.
The dirty little secret is that Abortion providers are interested in their bottom line YOUR MONEY."

"Imagine feeling safe and the next moment someone is killing you and you can't get away or cry for help.
Sadly this procedure is used as a fail-safe if birth control does not prevent a pregnancy. Great 'Orwellian like' efforts have been made to redefine the actual definition of the term Fetus to not be defined as a child. In like fashion, the word Choice is being substituted for Abortion demonstrating a textbook example of political framing. This is part of a horrific philosophy that degrades women, by convincing them that their children are not worthy to be born."

@ semck - Well that's fine, you believe a fetus is a person with a right to life, but that is a belief, and belief that other people do not share is not a basis for imposing your views on other people. If you personally believe that a fetus is as sacred a human life as any other, then you shouldn't get an abortion should you find yourself pregnant. But seeing as that is your own personal belief, you do not get to impose that on other people, however difficult that may be for you.

"If you personally believe that a fetus is as sacred a human life as any other, then you shouldn't get an abortion should you find yourself pregnant. But seeing as that is your own personal belief, you do not get to impose that on other people, however difficult that may be for you. "

Nonsense. Every one of your moral beliefs is also "just a belief," as well, and you have no problem imposing them on others (unless, for example, you oppose anti-murder laws. Even your belief that moral beliefs shouldn't be impose on others is something you attempt to impose on others, by resisting the laws they would pass.)

I could just as well say that if you don't believe murder is wrong, you shouldn't murder anybody, but it's none of your business if I do.

Also @ semck - I think you'll find I said I was being facetious (adj. synonyms: humorous, insincere, sarcastic, sardonic, snarky), when I asked if you were close friends with any fetuses. Your rejection of that criterion is therefore not meaningful.

@ semck - once again you make a completely ridiculous argument. There are different kinds of beliefs, not all of which are directly equivalent in all ways. I may believe that there is an invisible purple opera singing space octopus constantly hugging the earth. This belief is not meaningfully comparable with the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Nor is it meaningfully comparable with the belief that killing someone is wrong. Or with the belief that eating meat or consuming animal products of any kind, is wrong.

It is possible you see to provide an argument in favour of one of those beliefs, the second is simply a concept you hold very dear. I can make the argument that killing a living, self aware, sapient and sentient human being is removing his agency, presumably against his will. It harms him and anyone who cared about him. I can also argue from the negative consequences of this act.
Can you similarly justify your belief that personhood begins at conception, in a way that is satisfying to someone who does not share your religious beliefs (I had to include this qualifier, because religions can simply decide things arbitrarily and rely on authority to impose them.)
In short words, it is not SIMPLY a belief that murder is always wrong. It is a position, for which I can argue.

Errr that should say "I can also argue from the negative consequences of allowing this act, en masse."

Also a secular defense for the position that personhood begins at conception is necessary because religious justifications are not sufficient for legal issues.

"This belief is not meaningfully comparable with the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.... It is possible you see to provide an argument in favour of one of those beliefs, the second is simply a concept you hold very dear."

It's funny you say that. We had an argument on exactly the point of whether you could support the concept that the sun will rise tomorrow, and you ended by saying that you had no problem with the fact that you accepted it completely without support or argument, as a bare assertion. I can find you the quote if you want. It was quite striking, and I promised at the time to bring it up again if need be. I didn't know you'd provide me with such an incredible opening, though.

So no, _you_ actually can't distinguish these kinds of beliefs.

"I can make the argument that killing a living, self aware, sapient and sentient human being is removing his agency, presumably against his will."

Sure, but what if I reject that that matters? What if I just don't believe that agency is a relative criterion or that morals exist? Why can you impose your belief to the contrary on me? I'd love to hear your argument in favor of the fact that they do, and that you're "morally justified" in enforcing that on me.

"Can you similarly justify your belief that personhood begins at conception, in a way that is satisfying to someone who does not share your religious beliefs."

Can you provide an argument to somebody who does not share your moral beliefs (or believe in morality at all)?

The fact is, if I believe that fetuses are humans and killing them is murder, I _am_ going to fight to end it. That's a descriptive fact. Just as you would fight to end murder, being not as twisted as many, who would argue that it is not wrong.

As a side point, to "But seeing as that is your own personal belief, you do not get to impose that on other people, however difficult that may be for you,"

I would have to wonder who made you king? As always in a democracy, I can fight to impose whatever I want to, including fighting to change the Constitution or the courts until they allow me. I'm not sure what sense of "can't" you even meant, actually. "Can't" consistently in your moral system? Why are you trying to impose it on me?

So,

"once again you make a completely ridiculous argument."

No, I don't. I just realize, as you will not admit (to yourself or others), that my world view inevitably shapes my moral beliefs, and my moral beliefs inevitably shape my view of the law. And not only me, everybody else is the same.