Late Term Abortions (1 Viewer)

[Balance]

 

[timschochet]

This is where you're losing people. Your determination of "inside someone's body" is a distinciton solely to capture abortions. Thus it sounds like a rationalization instead of some logically-derived maxim.Tim: The right to control over your own body that is absolute.vnel8tn: Even if it interferes with another's control over their body?Tim: No, that's an exception.vnel8tn: So abortions shouldn't be allowed, because that's a violation of your exception.Tim: Well, then I need an exception to my exception.

I would never say, "No, that's an exception" because I don't regard it as one. No one has the right to harm others. However, you are correct that "inside someone's body" is a distinction solely to capture abortions- but in what other situation other than a pregnant woman is someone inside somebody else's body? There is none.

 

[The Commish]

This is where you're losing people. Your determination of "inside someone's body" is a distinciton solely to capture abortions. Thus it sounds like a rationalization instead of some logically-derived maxim.Tim: The right to control over your own body that is absolute.vnel8tn: Even if it interferes with another's control over their body?Tim: No, that's an exception.vnel8tn: So abortions shouldn't be allowed, because that's a violation of your exception.Tim: Well, then I need an exception to my exception.

I would never say, "No, that's an exception" because I don't regard it as one. No one has the right to harm others. However, you are correct that "inside someone's body" is a distinction solely to capture abortions- but in what other situation other than a pregnant woman is someone inside somebody else's body? There is none.

I am sure you mean "completely inside" right??

 

[timschochet]

This is where you're losing people. Your determination of "inside someone's body" is a distinciton solely to capture abortions. Thus it sounds like a rationalization instead of some logically-derived maxim.Tim: The right to control over your own body that is absolute.vnel8tn: Even if it interferes with another's control over their body?Tim: No, that's an exception.vnel8tn: So abortions shouldn't be allowed, because that's a violation of your exception.Tim: Well, then I need an exception to my exception.

I would never say, "No, that's an exception" because I don't regard it as one. No one has the right to harm others. However, you are correct that "inside someone's body" is a distinction solely to capture abortions- but in what other situation other than a pregnant woman is someone inside somebody else's body? There is none.

I am sure you mean "completely inside" right??

Yes, although if you look through this thread, you will find I support a person's rights to their body in such situations where another person is partly inside their body as well. I won't get into details here- you can look it up.

 

[Orange Crush]

This is where you're losing people. Your determination of "inside someone's body" is a distinciton solely to capture abortions. Thus it sounds like a rationalization instead of some logically-derived maxim.Tim: The right to control over your own body that is absolute.vnel8tn: Even if it interferes with another's control over their body?Tim: No, that's an exception.vnel8tn: So abortions shouldn't be allowed, because that's a violation of your exception.Tim: Well, then I need an exception to my exception.

I would never say, "No, that's an exception" because I don't regard it as one. No one has the right to harm others. However, you are correct that "inside someone's body" is a distinction solely to capture abortions- but in what other situation other than a pregnant woman is someone inside somebody else's body? There is none.

Ah, so there's competing rights at issue. The right to do what you want with your body versus the right to be free from harm by other's actions.It's either competing rights, or an exception. There's no other possibility, Tim.

 

[vnel8tn]

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.

I guess I can play this game too. Using this logic: toddlers never become adults. What point does this make?

 

[vnel8tn]

This is where you're losing people. Your determination of "inside someone's body" is a distinciton solely to capture abortions. Thus it sounds like a rationalization instead of some logically-derived maxim.Tim: The right to control over your own body that is absolute.vnel8tn: Even if it interferes with another's control over their body?Tim: No, that's an exception.vnel8tn: So abortions shouldn't be allowed, because that's a violation of your exception.Tim: Well, then I need an exception to my exception.

I would never say, "No, that's an exception" because I don't regard it as one. No one has the right to harm others. However, you are correct that "inside someone's body" is a distinction solely to capture abortions- but in what other situation other than a pregnant woman is someone inside somebody else's body? There is none.

Ah, so there's competing rights at issue. The right to do what you want with your body versus the right to be free from harm by other's actions.It's either competing rights, or an exception. There's no other possibility, Tim.

Wow, OC and I agree for once!

 

[Joseph]

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.

I guess I can play this game too. Using this logic: toddlers never become adults. What point does this make?

Also, working people never become retired. Might as well cut off Social Security since its not meant to help working people...

 

[vnel8tn]

This is where you're losing people. Your determination of "inside someone's body" is a distinciton solely to capture abortions. Thus it sounds like a rationalization instead of some logically-derived maxim.Tim: The right to control over your own body that is absolute.vnel8tn: Even if it interferes with another's control over their body?Tim: No, that's an exception.vnel8tn: So abortions shouldn't be allowed, because that's a violation of your exception.Tim: Well, then I need an exception to my exception.

I would never say, "No, that's an exception" because I don't regard it as one. No one has the right to harm others. However, you are correct that "inside someone's body" is a distinction solely to capture abortions- but in what other situation other than a pregnant woman is someone inside somebody else's body? There is none.

I am sure you mean "completely inside" right??

Yes, although if you look through this thread, you will find I support a person's rights to their body in such situations where another person is partly inside their body as well. I won't get into details here- you can look it up.

Still a little confused about Tim's definition of "Absolute", but oh, well...I asked earlier in the thread about Michael Jackson hanging his toddler over the balcony...using Tim's logic (mental gymnastics if you ask me) and give him credit, for I think he has tried to remain consistent at least... Michael would have been well within his ABSOLUTE rights to drop that toddler to his death, society has no right to limit his desires to do as he pleases.

 

[CBusAlex]

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.

I guess I can play this game too. Using this logic: toddlers never become adults. What point does this make?

That the definition of conception as the point where life begins is as arbitrary as any other.

 

[vnel8tn]

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.

I guess I can play this game too. Using this logic: toddlers never become adults. What point does this make?

That the definition of conception as the point where life begins is as arbitrary as any other.

You may wish that that were true, but it doesn't make it so. Before conception, you do not have an individual, complete human at any stage. After you do. That is factual...I know you don't like it, and wish you could make it different, but it is not incorrect. The logic that Maurile attempts to use actually makes my point...each stage after conception leads to the next. So choosing any point after conception by assigning more value at a given stage is what makes it arbitrary.

 

[Orange Crush]

This is where you're losing people. Your determination of "inside someone's body" is a distinciton solely to capture abortions. Thus it sounds like a rationalization instead of some logically-derived maxim.Tim: The right to control over your own body that is absolute.vnel8tn: Even if it interferes with another's control over their body?Tim: No, that's an exception.vnel8tn: So abortions shouldn't be allowed, because that's a violation of your exception.Tim: Well, then I need an exception to my exception.

I would never say, "No, that's an exception" because I don't regard it as one. No one has the right to harm others. However, you are correct that "inside someone's body" is a distinction solely to capture abortions- but in what other situation other than a pregnant woman is someone inside somebody else's body? There is none.

Ah, so there's competing rights at issue. The right to do what you want with your body versus the right to be free from harm by other's actions.It's either competing rights, or an exception. There's no other possibility, Tim.

Wow, OC and I agree for once!

Don't get too excited. I actually agree with Tim's end result. I'm just blasting the tortured illogic he's using to get there.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

each stage after conception leads to the next

What do you mean by "leads to"?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.

I guess I can play this game too. Using this logic: toddlers never become adults. What point does this make?

Did you read only my post, or the posts I was quoting and responding to as well?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Before conception, you do not have an individual, complete human at any stage. After you do. That is factual...

The question of whether to call a zygote (but not an ovum, or not anything before neurulation) a "complete human," like the question of whether to call Pluto a planet, is not a matter of fact. It is a matter of labeling. And labels are matters of judgment.From a purely factual standpoint, all labels are arbitrary.(Not to mention that if you showed somebody a zygote on a slide under a microscope, and he asked "what's that?" and you answered "a complete human," it might draw laughs. In the eyes of many, a complete human should at the very least be multicellular.)

 

[Orange Crush]

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.

I guess I can play this game too. Using this logic: toddlers never become adults. What point does this make?

That the definition of conception as the point where life begins is as arbitrary as any other.

You may wish that that were true, but it doesn't make it so. Before conception, you do not have an individual, complete human at any stage. After you do. That is factual...I know you don't like it, and wish you could make it different, but it is not incorrect. The logic that Maurile attempts to use actually makes my point...each stage after conception leads to the next. So choosing any point after conception by assigning more value at a given stage is what makes it arbitrary.

And both me and Maurile both think that even the point of conception is arbitrary. And if any point is arbitrary, then we need to collectively pick a point in time that makes the most sense for our society.I have serious problems with choosing conception as defining the beginning of life, as it means all of us who have had sex with a woman on the pill has, by definition, ended life.Also, if we are to say that the state can impose limits on a woman's actions to protect the life growing within her starting at conception, then we can hold her legally liable for any action she takes that may harm that life. A significant number of pregnancies are ended early through miscarriage. Every time there is a miscarriage (i.e. the termination of life, per the conception rule), do we want to prosecute women for any of their actions that may have contributed or caused that miscarriage? Is she guilty of reckless endangerment? How about manslaughter? Does the father then have a duty to ensure the mother is taking all precautions in relation to the life within her? And if he doesn't, is he then guilty of a crime?I know some may think this is preposterous and absurd, but it's actually the legal issues that would be opened up if such a "conception" standard became the law of the land. That's the main reason why I support the current law on the books for a much later time period for when the state's interest can supersede the woman's inherent right to privacy.

 

[vnel8tn]

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.

I guess I can play this game too. Using this logic: toddlers never become adults. What point does this make?

Did you read only my post, or the posts I was quoting and responding to as well?

I did read your post and the others as well. I believe that you are disingenuous in your argument, and this one example makes that point for me the clearest. The human process which I shared earlier with a link describing meiosis & mitosis, seems to have been ignored in your argument. The ovum & the sperm are the halves (incomplete, with a life cycle of their own) that once combined, become something inherently different. It is distinguishable as human by the very blue-print it contains. Please point out the incongruousness of my argument if you will, but the distinction I am making is that up until that union, you only have parts. After, it is distinctly a different being, unique from both father and mother. It is the COMPLETE human at the earliest point. That is not merely a label, but the science which you preach.

 

[vnel8tn]

(Not to mention that if you showed somebody a zygote on a slide under a microscope, and he asked "what's that?" and you answered "a complete human," it might draw laughs. In the eyes of many, a complete human should at the very least be multicellular.)

Understood and agreed that to the uneducated, this view through the microscope might elicit laughs when the query of "what's that?" was answered "a complete human". This is why I have targeted the majority of my replies on this issue to those of you who have flaunted science as the bedrock principle to challenge faith. I am not trying to argue this issue from the basis of my faith, but rather what science has taught.

In the eyes of many, a complete human should at the very least be multicellular.)

Again, agreed that those who choose to ignore the facts would try instead, to use comfortable assumptions to fill in the gaps. That comfort, however, does not turn those assumptions themselves into facts...edit: four mi pour spellun...

 

[vnel8tn]

each stage after conception leads to the next

What do you mean by "leads to"?

Preceeds??? It was not mean to be tricky...

 

[fsword]

fsword, thanks for your very thoughtful response. It seems to me that your argument could be summarized as -- "natural rights" come from God and do not change, but over the years we have slowly come to realize and understand what those rights are and how they should be applied. And even today we do not have a perfect understanding, but we continually strive to more fully understand.Would you agree with that?

Not sure I agree with your summary, as the summary makes assumptions based upon facts I do not find quickly apparent. I would describe "natural rights" as a secular political term/ethic, used to define concepts of secular liberty and just, secular government. I am not sure man has come to a better understanding of those "natural rights" now, any more so than man has had a better understanding of God and God's character, then man has had in the past. I do however think acceptance of those ideas is greater today, on a larger geographic scale, than in times past.

I'm not sure I understand this post. I guess I was using "natural rights" as pseduo-synonymous with "nature's law" - your term from a few posts up. Or perhaps that it was logical to assume that "nature's law" was the source of "natural rights". I don't get how you say you believe natural law stems from our creator but natural rights is a secular term.

"Natural Law" is a way to say "Creator's Law" without naming the Creator. Maybe calling it a "secular term" isn't the best label, but it eliminates the religious preference of who the Creator is, which could be divisive or set a precedent for State run religion. If you have a better label, or a more precise way to relay the same thought, please post it.

 

[The Commish]

Yes, although if you look through this thread, you will find I support a person's rights to their body in such situations where another person is partly inside their body as well. I won't get into details here- you can look it up.

So one of two conjoined twins wants to kill him/herself, but the other doesn't. Since this is a black/white issue for you, who gets their way and why? The reality is....none of this is black and white to those willing to challenge themselves by looking at all sides of the issue.

 

[fsword]

Once babies are born, they are not unborn anymore. The unborn never become toddlers.

I guess I can play this game too.

Using this logic: toddlers never become adults.

What point does this make?

That the definition of conception as the point where life begins is as arbitrary as any other.

You may wish that that were true, but it doesn't make it so. Before conception, you do not have an individual, complete human at any stage. After you do. That is factual...I know you don't like it, and wish you could make it different, but it is not incorrect. The logic that Maurile attempts to use actually makes my point...each stage after conception leads to the next. So choosing any point after conception by assigning more value at a given stage is what makes it arbitrary.

And both me and Maurile both think that even the point of conception is arbitrary. And if any point is arbitrary, then we need to collectively pick a point in time that makes the most sense for our society.I have serious problems with choosing conception as defining the beginning of life, as it means all of us who have had sex with a woman on the pill has, by definition, ended life.

Also, if we are to say that the state can impose limits on a woman's actions to protect the life growing within her starting at conception, then we can hold her legally liable for any action she takes that may harm that life. A significant number of pregnancies are ended early through miscarriage. Every time there is a miscarriage (i.e. the termination of life, per the conception rule), do we want to prosecute women for any of their actions that may have contributed or caused that miscarriage? Is she guilty of reckless endangerment? How about manslaughter? Does the father then have a duty to ensure the mother is taking all precautions in relation to the life within her? And if he doesn't, is he then guilty of a crime?

I know some may think this is preposterous and absurd, but it's actually the legal issues that would be opened up if such a "conception" standard became the law of the land. That's the main reason why I support the current law on the books for a much later time period for when the state's interest can supersede the woman's inherent right to privacy.

This argument elevates oneself over the Creator, and defines the value of life in a way to justify personal action; simultaneously taking life in the process. Self actualization of this nature is steeped in might makes right. Is this what you mean in the first sentence "makes the most sense for our society"? Not throwing stones here, btw. But will also not defend my personal past evil at the expense of others.Similarly, this elevates the State as the source of rights. What the State grants, the State can take away. The State is elevated above Nature's Law, and can function apart from it's legitimate authority. Doesn't that sound similar to the Founding Fathers justification for rebellion against the King?

I agree with whoever earlier posted abortion denigrates humanity; and will also add that it denigrates society by arbitrarily ruling one life more valuable than another. I can hear the argument now, "We are our brother's keeper, but only the brother we want to keep."

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Yes. Viability is the artificial line I choose to have in these respects.

One of the biggest problems our society is facing today are the waves on under/noneducated people (mainly teens but some older as well) who have to many kids due to a lack of intelligence (birth control) or religion (refusal of use of abortion). This "springerization" of America is dangerous and frankly on a whole the less kids people in this demographic have, the better off we are as a society. (crime, welfare, jails. etc eerily similar to a domestic malthus argument for any former debaters out there)

and cut it with the elitism thing. I am/was one of those kids referenced above, only I used the intelligence that my parents blessed and nurtured me with, to make the smart and responsible choice.

 

[Orange Crush]

And both me and Maurile both think that even the point of conception is arbitrary. And if any point is arbitrary, then we need to collectively pick a point in time that makes the most sense for our society.

I have serious problems with choosing conception as defining the beginning of life, as it means all of us who have had sex with a woman on the pill has, by definition, ended life.

Also, if we are to say that the state can impose limits on a woman's actions to protect the life growing within her starting at conception, then we can hold her legally liable for any action she takes that may harm that life. A significant number of pregnancies are ended early through miscarriage. Every time there is a miscarriage (i.e. the termination of life, per the conception rule), do we want to prosecute women for any of their actions that may have contributed or caused that miscarriage? Is she guilty of reckless endangerment? How about manslaughter? Does the father then have a duty to ensure the mother is taking all precautions in relation to the life within her? And if he doesn't, is he then guilty of a crime?

I know some may think this is preposterous and absurd, but it's actually the legal issues that would be opened up if such a "conception" standard became the law of the land. That's the main reason why I support the current law on the books for a much later time period for when the state's interest can supersede the woman's inherent right to privacy.

This argument elevates oneself over the Creator, and defines the value of life in a way to justify personal action; simultaneously taking life in the process. Self actualization of this nature is steeped in might makes right. Is this what you mean in the first sentence "makes the most sense for our society"? Not throwing stones here, btw. But will also not defend my personal past evil at the expense of others.Similarly, this elevates the State as the source of rights. What the State grants, the State can take away. The State is elevated above Nature's Law, and can function apart from it's legitimate authority. Doesn't that sound similar to the Founding Fathers justification for rebellion against the King?

I agree with whoever earlier posted abortion denigrates humanity; and will also add that it denigrates society by arbitrarily ruling one life more valuable than another. I can hear the argument now, "We are our brother's keeper, but only the brother we want to keep."

Since I don't believe in a creator, I'm pretty ok with that. "Nature's Law" is a convenient substitute for the fallacy that we have distinct rights separate from the state. Personally, I think "the people" are sovereign, that "we, the people" determine what rights we have, and then give power to the state to protect those rights.Thus our rights are whatever the people say they are, and then when the state can prefer one set of rights over another is up to us as a society (we, the people) determine.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Yes, although if you look through this thread, you will find I support a person's rights to their body in such situations where another person is partly inside their body as well. I won't get into details here- you can look it up.

So one of two conjoined twins wants to kill him/herself, but the other doesn't. Since this is a black/white issue for you, who gets their way and why? The reality is....none of this is black and white to those willing to challenge themselves by looking at all sides of the issue.

Obviously the one with the gun, unless the other can stop them.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

This argument elevates oneself over the Creator, and defines the value of life in a way to justify personal action; simultaneously taking life in the process. Self actualization of this nature is steeped in might makes right. Is this what you mean in the first sentence "makes the most sense for our society"? Not throwing stones here, btw. But will also not defend my personal past evil at the expense of others.

Similarly, this elevates the State as the source of rights. What the State grants, the State can take away. The State is elevated above Nature's Law, and can function apart from it's legitimate authority. Doesn't that sound similar to the Founding Fathers justification for rebellion against the King?

I agree with whoever earlier posted abortion denigrates humanity; and will also add that it denigrates society by arbitrarily ruling one life more valuable than another. I can hear the argument now, "We are our brother's keeper, but only the brother we want to keep."

When it comes to laws and rights, those do flow from the state. With the exception of Human rights. Those (used to) come from the Geneva convention.

 

[timschochet]

Don't get too excited. I actually agree with Tim's end result. I'm just blasting the tortured illogic he's using to get there.

I don't think it's tortured. What's tortured is my ability to explain it, probably. This is a complicated issue and I can get trapped in verbal confusion. But there is no confusion about my ideas themselves.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, although if you look through this thread, you will find I support a person's rights to their body in such situations where another person is partly inside their body as well. I won't get into details here- you can look it up.

So one of two conjoined twins wants to kill him/herself, but the other doesn't. Since this is a black/white issue for you, who gets their way and why? The reality is....none of this is black and white to those willing to challenge themselves by looking at all sides of the issue.

Your core convictions should always be black and white. It is the application of those convictions that should force you to look at all sides of any given issue. I knew somebody would eventually bring up the conjoined twins. The answer is, if one wishes to kill himself, he should have the right to do so. I would hope he does not, but I do not recognize the moral authority of the state to step in and prevent such an action.

 

[vnel8tn]

Yes. Viability is the artificial line I choose to have in these respects. One of the biggest problems our society is facing today are the waves on under/noneducated people (mainly teens but some older as well) who have to many kids due to a lack of intelligence (birth control) or religion (refusal of use of abortion). This "springerization" of America is dangerous and frankly on a whole the less kids people in this demographic have, the better off we are as a society. (crime, welfare, jails. etc eerily similar to a domestic malthus argument for any former debaters out there)and cut it with the elitism thing. I am/was one of those kids referenced above, only I used the intelligence that my parents blessed and nurtured me with, to make the smart and responsible choice.

Echos of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger herself....

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

 

[vnel8tn]

Yes, although if you look through this thread, you will find I support a person's rights to their body in such situations where another person is partly inside their body as well. I won't get into details here- you can look it up.

So one of two conjoined twins wants to kill him/herself, but the other doesn't. Since this is a black/white issue for you, who gets their way and why? The reality is....none of this is black and white to those willing to challenge themselves by looking at all sides of the issue.

Your core convictions should always be black and white. It is the application of those convictions that should force you to look at all sides of any given issue. I knew somebody would eventually bring up the conjoined twins. The answer is, if one wishes to kill himself, he should have the right to do so. I would hope he does not, but I do not recognize the moral authority of the state to step in and prevent such an action.

Once again, I give you credit Tim for your staunch consistency. I hope & think (usually in that order ) that as you explore your convictions over time you will be able to reconcile your thoughts enough to figure out that we, as a civilized society, have an obligation to protect our citizens from the whims of the other citizens. Otherwise, you have just provided the rationale to return to caveman roots... I also believe that your initial goal, to point out the inconsistency of the normal pro-choice (going for kind, here) point of view rings true to me. If you are against late-term abortions, then, really, you ought to be against them all... Seems we are each arguing one of the two sides of the same coin after all...

 

[timschochet]

[i also believe that your initial goal, to point out the inconsistency of the normal pro-choice (going for kind, here) point of view rings true to me. If you are against late-term abortions, then, really, you ought to be against them all... Seems we are each arguing one of the two sides of the same coin after all...

There is also an inconsistency among pro-lifers too, vnel8tn, and I'd like to get your opinion: It seems to me that if you are opposed to abortion because you believe that a fetus has rights, then you should be opposed to all abortion situations, including those to pregnancies caused by rape and incest. What difference does it make to the fetus how it was concieved? Those pro-life politicians that want an exception for rape and incest are just as inconsistent, IMO. What say you?

 

[vnel8tn]

[i also believe that your initial goal, to point out the inconsistency of the normal pro-choice (going for kind, here) point of view rings true to me. If you are against late-term abortions, then, really, you ought to be against them all... Seems we are each arguing one of the two sides of the same coin after all...

There is also an inconsistency among pro-lifers too, vnel8tn, and I'd like to get your opinion: It seems to me that if you are opposed to abortion because you believe that a fetus has rights, then you should be opposed to all abortion situations, including those to pregnancies caused by rape and incest. What difference does it make to the fetus how it was concieved? Those pro-life politicians that want an exception for rape and incest are just as inconsistent, IMO. What say you?

I agree that there are definitely inconsistencies on both sides. (Careful, :VINNYwaffeling-ahead For pregnancies caused by rape and/or incest, ought to be held to the same standards, at least on the surface. But I disagree with your statement

if you are opposed to abortion because you believe that a fetus has rights, then you should be opposed to all abortion situations,

I believe that all humans are deserving of certain rights, but they should be necessarily weighed against the rights of others.I would accept and understand those pregnancies that have to end to save the life of the mother (as I understand it, tubal pregnancies, for instance, cannot result in a live birth and always risk the life of the mother)... However, some late term abortions (defined as prematurely ending the pregnancy) could happen without intentionally killing the baby.

I don't believe that I could force a woman who had not made an active, willful decision to voluntarily participate in the act to have to endure the additional risks of a possible pregnancy (essentially like a State imposed Double Jeopardy) ...so I could accept a provision that would allow something akin to 'Plan-B' being an option available in a rape crisis center. Again, the rights of one being weighed against the rights of another. In this scenario, the mother took no actions on her own that would have imposed a duty upon her. And by exercising the state imposed rights for the potential pregnancy (we wouldn't yet know if she had in fact conceived), we put that woman at increased risk for a duty we can only assume she might have in the future. In fact, this would equate to your arguments (maybe not YOUR argument, but those on your side) that pregnancy itself is considered indentured servitude.

I disagree, because unless rape/incest occurred, the mother voluntarily, and willfully participated in an act that has this as a likely potential outcome...whether it was desired or not. She has engaged in an act by which she assumes a duty owed to another. Much the same way a father, by engaging in that same act, is burdened with the duties of fatherhood whether or not he might only have been present during the minutes/days/hours surrounding the conception.

And I understand the political ramifications of not making exceptions in these hot-button cases...there would never be an acceptance in the public. Nevertheless, I believe that politicians are almost always, universally inconsistent on about any issue

 

[Christo]

Why does an embryo have "worth" or value"?

An embryo (generically), is not what I am putting a 'worth' or 'value' on. A HUMAN embryo, is. Why, you ask? Because a HUMAN embryo is a complete HUMAN at that given stage. Why do you value some human(s) 'worth' as more than others, based on whatever stage each might be in?

I think the thing that makes humans special, broadly, is the capacity to think. So not all stages of life have the same value. For example, I don't think irreversibly brain dead people have much value at all.

What if that brain dead person were your mother? Or child?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Would I pull the plug? Yes. Would I still be emotionally attached to a family member in that situation? Yes.

I don't understand what you mean by value? Isn't emotional attachment a value?

 

[Christo]

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

What about implantation? Fertilization without implantation is nothing. And in the medical community, implantation is the key event. When some couples who are having trouble getting pregnant go to a fertility clinic, they will have a bunch of eggs fertilized in a petri dish and all of them will be inserted hoping for at least one to be implanted. So why do you put special emphasis on just fertilization?

Should be conception not fertilization.

Because ... ???Fertilization is the point where that group of cells finally has a greater than 50% chance of being born a baby.

If you make the point conception, first off, almost all oral contraceptives would be banned since they prevent implantation rather than conception. So you're damning all men to a life of condom use. :(

You first state that fertilization without implantation is nothing. Now you say it means there is a greater than 50% chance of being born. Make up your mind.When I said conception I meant fertilization and implantation because you had a problem with just fertilization.

Conception - the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception

 

[Christo]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

The only problem with this, and it's a hell of a big one, is that it's not just her body.

 

[Christo]

Unfertilized eggs don't become babies. The embryo represents a required step in achieving the end goal of producing a baby.

Huh? Unfertilized eggs do become babies. After they're fertilized and implanted and grow inside a womb. Just like embryos become babies after they implant and grow inside a womb.

Yes, after they are fertilized, they aren't unfertilized any longer....unfertilized eggs don't become babies.

Using the same logic, I could say this:After an embryo grows in a womb, it is a fetus ... embryos don't become babies.

You could say that but it makes no sense.

 

[Orange Crush]

Fertilization is the point where that group of cells finally has a greater than 50% chance of being born a baby.

If you make the point conception, first off, almost all oral contraceptives would be banned since they prevent implantation rather than conception. So you're damning all men to a life of condom use.

You first state that fertilization without implantation is nothing. Now you say it means there is a greater than 50% chance of being born. Make up your mind.When I said conception I meant fertilization and implantation because you had a problem with just fertilization.

Conception - the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant implantation is the first point in time with a greater than 50% chance of being born. You're the first person I've ever seen on the pro-life side to include implantation within the term of conception. At the point of fertilization, there's roughly a 3 in 8 chance of eventual child birth provided there are no active steps taken to terminate. For medicine, implantation is considered the point in time that matters. After that, the odds are a lot higher. 1 in 8 known pregnancies result in a miscarriage. It is not known how many natural miscarriages occur before the women realize they are pregnant. Pretty hard to get data there.

 

[fsword]

Since I don't believe in a creator, I'm pretty ok with that. "Nature's Law" is a convenient substitute for the fallacy that we have distinct rights separate from the state. Personally, I think "the people" are sovereign, that "we, the people" determine what rights we have, and then give power to the state to protect those rights.Thus our rights are whatever the people say they are, and then when the state can prefer one set of rights over another is up to us as a society (we, the people) determine.

If you believe in no Creator, then your belief the people are sovereign is built upon a faulty foundation, imo. Your belief is based upon might makes right. If might truly makes right, the state is sovereign over the people, and the people are sheeple with only the rights granted them by the state. What am I missing here about the foundation of your beliefs? You are consistently well thought-out, and this post seems out of character.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Since I don't believe in a creator, I'm pretty ok with that. "Nature's Law" is a convenient substitute for the fallacy that we have distinct rights separate from the state. Personally, I think "the people" are sovereign, that "we, the people" determine what rights we have, and then give power to the state to protect those rights.Thus our rights are whatever the people say they are, and then when the state can prefer one set of rights over another is up to us as a society (we, the people) determine.

If you believe in no Creator, then your belief the people are sovereign is built upon a faulty foundation, imo. Your belief is based upon might makes right. If might truly makes right, the state is sovereign over the people, and the people are sheeple with only the rights granted them by the state. What am I missing here about the foundation of your beliefs? You are consistently well thought-out, and this post seems out of character.

That's quite a hijack, and anyway seems entirely backwards to me. In my experience, it's the theists rather than the atheists who implicitly argue that might makes right. (An all-powerful god made the universe, so He gets to determine what's right and wrong.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

1 in 8 known pregnancies result in a miscarriage. It is not known how many natural miscarriages occur before the women realize they are pregnant. Pretty hard to get data there.

It takes some guesswork, but the sources cited in Wikipedia suggest that the best guess is around 35 percent.

 

[fsword]

Since I don't believe in a creator, I'm pretty ok with that. "Nature's Law" is a convenient substitute for the fallacy that we have distinct rights separate from the state. Personally, I think "the people" are sovereign, that "we, the people" determine what rights we have, and then give power to the state to protect those rights.Thus our rights are whatever the people say they are, and then when the state can prefer one set of rights over another is up to us as a society (we, the people) determine.

If you believe in no Creator, then your belief the people are sovereign is built upon a faulty foundation, imo. Your belief is based upon might makes right. If might truly makes right, the state is sovereign over the people, and the people are sheeple with only the rights granted them by the state. What am I missing here about the foundation of your beliefs? You are consistently well thought-out, and this post seems out of character.

That's quite a hijack, and anyway seems entirely backwards to me. In my experience, it's the theists rather than the atheists who implicitly argue that might makes right. (An all-powerful god made the universe, so He gets to determine what's right and wrong.)

Didn't intend a hijack, but that is the logic of the OP, as well as this sidecar conversation.Maybe the point seems entirely backwards, but maybe its the perspective that is askew? Both theists and atheists believe might makes right, they simply disagree in terms of whose might makes right.

 

[Orange Crush]

Since I don't believe in a creator, I'm pretty ok with that. "Nature's Law" is a convenient substitute for the fallacy that we have distinct rights separate from the state. Personally, I think "the people" are sovereign, that "we, the people" determine what rights we have, and then give power to the state to protect those rights.Thus our rights are whatever the people say they are, and then when the state can prefer one set of rights over another is up to us as a society (we, the people) determine.

If you believe in no Creator, then your belief the people are sovereign is built upon a faulty foundation, imo. Your belief is based upon might makes right. If might truly makes right, the state is sovereign over the people, and the people are sheeple with only the rights granted them by the state. What am I missing here about the foundation of your beliefs? You are consistently well thought-out, and this post seems out of character.

That's quite a hijack, and anyway seems entirely backwards to me. In my experience, it's the theists rather than the atheists who implicitly argue that might makes right. (An all-powerful god made the universe, so He gets to determine what's right and wrong.)

Didn't intend a hijack, but that is the logic of the OP, as well as this sidecar conversation.Maybe the point seems entirely backwards, but maybe its the perspective that is askew? Both theists and atheists believe might makes right, they simply disagree in terms of whose might makes right.

I don't think might makes right. There are plenty of governmental systems where power rests in a few people or just one person, and they are more than capable of making unjust decisions and policies. So they may have the might but that doesn't make it right. But in a democracy, both might and right rests in, and flows from, "the people." I can see where the lines can get a little blurry here. How we determine what is "right", or what our "rights" are is based on our collective beliefs/ideas/logical reasoning as decided as a society, or as a people. I don't see this as any different from your earlier description of understanding "natural rights" - since you framed it as an ever-evolving understanding of God's will. To me that sounds like "back then we as a people thought X was right, but now we think Y is right." It's all the same to me. But then we as a people, because we are self-governing, put those rights into effect through the power of the state. The state is but a reflection of the popular will. The people determine what is right, and then we give the state the might to enforce that right. Something isn't right because we have the power to enforce it. The determination of right comes first, then the might to enforce it. Both the right and the might is derived from the people.

 

[CBusAlex]

You may wish that that were true, but it doesn't make it so. Before conception, you do not have an individual, complete human at any stage. After you do. That is factual...I know you don't like it, and wish you could make it different, but it is not incorrect. The logic that Maurile attempts to use actually makes my point...each stage after conception leads to the next. So choosing any point after conception by assigning more value at a given stage is what makes it arbitrary.

The only difference in the egg before and after fertilization is that afterwards it has a full set of genetic material. You've chosen to define that as the sole condition for a "complete human". That's fine and all, but you have to understand that it's a judgment call on your part, not a fact. I know you wish it were a fact, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Christo]

Fertilization is the point where that group of cells finally has a greater than 50% chance of being born a baby.

If you make the point conception, first off, almost all oral contraceptives would be banned since they prevent implantation rather than conception. So you're damning all men to a life of condom use.

You first state that fertilization without implantation is nothing. Now you say it means there is a greater than 50% chance of being born. Make up your mind.When I said conception I meant fertilization and implantation because you had a problem with just fertilization.

Conception - the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant implantation is the first point in time with a greater than 50% chance of being born. You're the first person I've ever seen on the pro-life side to include implantation within the term of conception. At the point of fertilization, there's roughly a 3 in 8 chance of eventual child birth provided there are no active steps taken to terminate. For medicine, implantation is considered the point in time that matters. After that, the odds are a lot higher. 1 in 8 known pregnancies result in a miscarriage. It is not known how many natural miscarriages occur before the women realize they are pregnant. Pretty hard to get data there.

I'm good with this. Whether it be fertilization, implantation or a combination of both doesn't really matter to me. On one side I'm dealing timmy who apparently thinks a woman should be able to strangle her kid with its umbilical cord in the birth canal. On the other side I'm dealing with MT who seems to be working his way back from unfertilized eggs to the Big Bang. I'm just identifying the point at which there is no emotional, moral, ethical, value judgment laden argument for the beginning of an individual life.

 

[Orange Crush]

Fertilization is the point where that group of cells finally has a greater than 50% chance of being born a baby.

If you make the point conception, first off, almost all oral contraceptives would be banned since they prevent implantation rather than conception. So you're damning all men to a life of condom use.

You first state that fertilization without implantation is nothing. Now you say it means there is a greater than 50% chance of being born. Make up your mind.When I said conception I meant fertilization and implantation because you had a problem with just fertilization.

Conception - the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant implantation is the first point in time with a greater than 50% chance of being born. You're the first person I've ever seen on the pro-life side to include implantation within the term of conception. At the point of fertilization, there's roughly a 3 in 8 chance of eventual child birth provided there are no active steps taken to terminate. For medicine, implantation is considered the point in time that matters. After that, the odds are a lot higher. 1 in 8 known pregnancies result in a miscarriage. It is not known how many natural miscarriages occur before the women realize they are pregnant. Pretty hard to get data there.

I'm good with this. Whether it be fertilization, implantation or a combination of both doesn't really matter to me. On one side I'm dealing timmy who apparently thinks a woman should be able to strangle her kid with its umbilical cord in the birth canal. On the other side I'm dealing with MT who seems to be working his way back from unfertilized eggs to the Big Bang. I'm just identifying the point at which there is no emotional, moral, ethical, value judgment laden argument for the beginning of an individual life.

Ok, and just to verify how committed you are to that position, you thus have no problem with the morning after pill or any other forms of contraceptives designed to prevent a fertilized egg from successful implantation. Correct?

 

[Christo]

Ok, and just to verify how committed you are to that position, you thus have no problem with the morning after pill or any other forms of contraceptives designed to prevent a fertilized egg from successful implantation. Correct?

If that's the extent of it, sure.

 

[vnel8tn]

You may wish that that were true, but it doesn't make it so. Before conception, you do not have an individual, complete human at any stage. After you do. That is factual...I know you don't like it, and wish you could make it different, but it is not incorrect. The logic that Maurile attempts to use actually makes my point...each stage after conception leads to the next. So choosing any point after conception by assigning more value at a given stage is what makes it arbitrary.

The only difference in the egg before and after fertilization is that afterwards it has a full set of genetic material. You've chosen to define that as the sole condition for a "complete human". That's fine and all, but you have to understand that it's a judgment call on your part, not a fact. I know you wish it were a fact, but that doesn't make it so.

Hmmm. Well, CBA, no wishing required on my part. I will present the facts as I understand them. Please tell me what I am missing.In humans, the reproductive cycle of the species shows that a haploid cell from each parent, is fused into one diploid cell (now called a zygote). Before this zygote is created the gametes are merely 'potential humans'...they gotta combine or else they proceed through their own, natural life cycle and die as gametes. The zygote, however, is now a complete human organism, distinguishable from all other humans (yes, through the unique genetic material it possesses). Hence, without any judgement required, the human zygote is the earliest possible existance of any complete human there can be. That is a fact. I don't have to wish about it, it just is. You might wish it otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.Why do you choose to devalue the unique, individual, complete human at any one point versus any other? Why do you assume I am placing any conditions upon my determinations of human worth, when it is actually you who is attempting to differentiate humans conditionally?

 

[Orange Crush]

[i also believe that your initial goal, to point out the inconsistency of the normal pro-choice (going for kind, here) point of view rings true to me. If you are against late-term abortions, then, really, you ought to be against them all... Seems we are each arguing one of the two sides of the same coin after all...

There is also an inconsistency among pro-lifers too, vnel8tn, and I'd like to get your opinion: It seems to me that if you are opposed to abortion because you believe that a fetus has rights, then you should be opposed to all abortion situations, including those to pregnancies caused by rape and incest. What difference does it make to the fetus how it was concieved? Those pro-life politicians that want an exception for rape and incest are just as inconsistent, IMO. What say you?

I agree that there are definitely inconsistencies on both sides. (Careful, :VINNYwaffeling-ahead For pregnancies caused by rape and/or incest, ought to be held to the same standards, at least on the surface. But I disagree with your statement

if you are opposed to abortion because you believe that a fetus has rights, then you should be opposed to all abortion situations,

I believe that all humans are deserving of certain rights, but they should be necessarily weighed against the rights of others.I would accept and understand those pregnancies that have to end to save the life of the mother (as I understand it, tubal pregnancies, for instance, cannot result in a live birth and always risk the life of the mother)... However, some late term abortions (defined as prematurely ending the pregnancy) could happen without intentionally killing the baby.

I don't believe that I could force a woman who had not made an active, willful decision to voluntarily participate in the act to have to endure the additional risks of a possible pregnancy (essentially like a State imposed Double Jeopardy) ...so I could accept a provision that would allow something akin to 'Plan-B' being an option available in a rape crisis center. Again, the rights of one being weighed against the rights of another. In this scenario, the mother took no actions on her own that would have imposed a duty upon her. And by exercising the state imposed rights for the potential pregnancy (we wouldn't yet know if she had in fact conceived), we put that woman at increased risk for a duty we can only assume she might have in the future. In fact, this would equate to your arguments (maybe not YOUR argument, but those on your side) that pregnancy itself is considered indentured servitude.

I disagree, because unless rape/incest occurred, the mother voluntarily, and willfully participated in an act that has this as a likely potential outcome...whether it was desired or not. She has engaged in an act by which she assumes a duty owed to another. Much the same way a father, by engaging in that same act, is burdened with the duties of fatherhood whether or not he might only have been present during the minutes/days/hours surrounding the conception.

And I understand the political ramifications of not making exceptions in these hot-button cases...there would never be an acceptance in the public. Nevertheless, I believe that politicians are almost always, universally inconsistent on about any issue

Are you sure you wanted to include the word 'likely' in there? Because many of the women who have abortions do so because they took precautions to ensure that a pregnancy was an incredibly unlikely event, yet they became pregnant anyway. So if the contraceptive they used has a 99% effective rate, then the women who get pregnant anyway should be allowed an abortion because the act they willfully participated in did not have pregnancy as a likely potential outcome?Secondly, am I correct in understanding your earlier position that "Plan B", also known as the morning after pill, is the solution you'd prefer in cases of rape or incest? That implies a couple things: 1) that after implantation takes place an abortion should not be allowed; and 2) contraceptives designed to prevent implantation normally should not be allowed. Does that accurately describe your beliefs?

 

[Christo]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

The only problem with this, and it's a hell of a big one, is that it's not just her body.

Yes it is. It's all hers. Noone elses.

It's two days before your wife is scheduled to go in for a c-section. I punch her in the stomach. The baby dies. No murder charges, right?

 

[Christo]

The debate over when life begins is always a fascinating one, but it's interesting to me that it seems to have taken over this thread, because my whole original point was that it was irrelevant, IMO, to a woman's right to an abortion. The reason which allows me to defend late-term abortion is because I hold that a woman can choose to do what she wants to with her body at ANY time.

For me, the main moral problem with both Roe and Casey is that the judges want to have it both ways. They assert that the right to an abortion is an aspect of the right to privacy, which is inherent (though unstated) in the Constitution. (I happen to agree with this.) But then they go on to assert that the State does have the right to restrict abortion for a "viable" fetus. This seems contradictory to me. Why should the government be involved in counting the months and examing a fetus to determine if it is "viable"?

The only problem with this, and it's a hell of a big one, is that it's not just her body.

Yes it is. It's all hers. Noone elses.

It's two days before your wife is scheduled to go in for a c-section. I punch her in the stomach. The baby dies. No murder charges, right?

Its two days before YOU are scheduled for a C-Section... YOU go on a meth and alcohol binge, do three 5-minute rounds in the local mma ring and chew on a wheelbarrows worth of Cedar root...NO MURDER CHARGES.

Care to answer the question?