A funny (conservative) take on abortion

[Throckmorton]

So when you said that the state can force you to raise a child, you made a false statement.

How so? The state can force you to raise a child, as opposed to neglecting a child, or abusing a child, under the threat of prison time.

Which a woman can freely choose to do at her own discretion. Denying her the right to terminate her pregnancy of her own free will turns her into an involuntary incubator. For someone who so loudly trumpets the dignity of being human you are disgustingly casual about dehumanizing women.

I didn't say the state SHOULD ban abortion. To me, it's clear that abortion is killing a human being, but I don't know what the solution should be. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers aren't even willing to have that debate.

What bothers me though is that pro-choicers are making the same catastrophic mistake as conservatives have on global warming. They made up their minds first, and are now denying the scientific reality because it doesn't support their position.

The correct thing would be to admit that a fetus is a human being with its own distinct DNA and individual body, but that abortion should be legal because the state can't force a woman to be an incubator for a separate person.

Just like the those against climate change legislation should admit that global warming is real and caused by humans, which is scientific reality, and instead debate the legislative response to global warming.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is a clear and reasonable argument to be made for why we should treat all human life as though it possesses person-hood.

I don't see you making that argument. Why's that?

If you can't see that you're as bumper-sticker blind as the next guy.

You do realize that if all "human life" has personhood, then there has been a literal ongoing holocaust among the human species for millenia called "menstruation" and "masturbation."

I hope you realize how absurd such a view really is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How so? The state can force you to raise a child, as opposed to neglecting a child, or abusing a child, under the threat of prison time.

Holy shit, I was really giving you too much credit.

If there are legal means to turn the responsibilities of raising a child over to the state or another ward, then it is false that the state can force you to raise that child.

Your argument is akin to saying that the state can force you to drive your car to work, even while it is legal to walk to work, because of course the state can fine you for failing to replace your tail light or imprison you for running somebody over.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO RAISE THE CHILD. IT'S CALLED ADOPTION. DO I NEED TO WRITE IT IN LARGER TEXT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?

I didn't say the state SHOULD ban abortion. To me, it's clear that abortion is killing a human being, but I don't know what the solution should be. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers aren't even willing to have that debate.

Abortion does not kill a human being. Human beings are the legal equivalents to persons, and persons are born.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What bothers me though is that pro-choicers are making the same catastrophic mistake as conservatives have on global warming. They made up their minds first, and are now denying the scientific reality because it doesn't support their position.

The debate is not a scientific one. It is a legal one. You are making a mistake if you think you can determine whether or not abortion should be legal scientifically.

Science merely describes what is. Laws describe what ought to be. You cannot derive the latter from the former.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't see you making that argument. Why's that?



You do realize that if all "human life" has personhood, then there has been a literal ongoing holocaust among the human species for millenia called "menstruation" and "masturbation."

I hope you realize how absurd such a view really is.

Are you being serious? A sperm isn't a human being, and an egg isn't a human being. Both only contain genetic information from one of the parents. A genetically distinct human being is not created until a sperm fertilizes an egg.

A pollen grain is a not a plant. A seed is a plant.

 

[Throckmorton]

Holy shit, I was really giving you too much credit.

If there are legal means to turn the responsibilities of raising a child over to the state or another ward, then it is false that the state can force you to raise that child.

Your argument is akin to saying that the state can force you to drive your car to work, even while it is legal to walk to work, because of course the state can fine you for failing to replace your tail light or imprison you for running somebody over.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO RAISE THE CHILD. IT'S CALLED ADOPTION. DO I NEED TO WRITE IT IN LARGER TEXT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?

You categorically denied that the state can force a person to raise another person. You didn't say "but there is a legal method for giving someone else that responsibility". Do I need to draw you a venn diagram?

Abortion does not kill a human being. Human beings are the legal equivalents to persons, and persons are born.

Explain to me what part of the birth process grants a fetus personhood.

 

[Throckmorton]

The debate is not a scientific one. It is a legal one. You are making a mistake if you think you can determine whether or not abortion should be legal scientifically.

Science merely describes what is. Laws describe what ought to be. You cannot derive the latter from the former.

Science describes a fetus as a human being in an early stage of development. You don't understand basic biology if you consider it to be anything other than a human. Or you're trying to twist scientific reality to match your political position on the legality of abortion...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I don't see you making that argument. Why's that?

It is on a basic respect for persons that morality exists (empirically) across civilizations and cultures; It is only in re-defining 'person' that we find a basis on which people have historically justified killing what we now view as 'persons'. It seems clear, then, that we should never ascribe non-person-hood to any independent human life.

You do realize that if all "human life" has person-hood, then there has been a literal ongoing holocaust among the human species for millenia called "menstruation" and "masturbation."

I hope you realize how absurd such a view really is.

It seems you are overlooking the differentiation central to the argument. No one is arguing that a sperm of egg cell that can not become a viable infant alone is an independent human life worth given the rights of person-hood to.

The difference between the egg and the fertilized, growing and viable fetus is that the egg is not a unique human life; while the fetus is.

Historically we have not ascribed 'person-hood' to what we knew to be unique human life in order to justify eliminating said humans when inconvenient and every time we have been wrong to do so.

If a person is going to kill you, you have a right to kill that person first; If a woman is about to be killed by a fetus then the she has a right to kill the fetus first.

Well the problem with that is a fertilized egg or"baby" to you has around a %35 of not implanting in the uterus or dying to you.

Spontaneous abortion usually occurs because of genetic or environmental factors that make the poor life unable to become an independent viable baby. Because nature eliminates the lives of those incapable of living in it does not justify us removing person-hood from said lives: otherwise it would be a fair argument to enslave people that "would have been eaten by a Lion anyway".

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Are you being serious? A sperm isn't a human being, and an egg isn't a human being. Both only contain genetic information from one of the parents. A genetically distinct human being is not created until a sperm fertilizes an egg.

A gamete is human and a gamete is alive. It is as much "human life" as you are.

A pollen grain is a not a plant. A seed is a plant.

You are exceptionally skilled at missing the point.

 

[Throckmorton]

A gamete is human and a gamete is alive. It is as much "human life" as you are.


You are exceptionally skilled at missing the point.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding this? A fetus is an individual human being. A cell from a human, be it a cancer cell or a gamete, is NOT.

So are you really claiming that a pollen grain is an individual plant, just like a seed?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You categorically denied that the state can force a person to raise another person. You didn't say "but there is a legal method for giving someone else that responsibility".

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, Gomer. It remains that if there is a legal means of transferring guardianship to another person, then it is not true that the state can force you to retain it.

Do I need to draw you a venn diagram?

Please do. By all means. I'd LOVE to see it.

Explain to me what part of the birth process grants a fetus personhood.

The same part of the marriage process that grants a bachelor husbandhood.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why are you having so much trouble understanding this? A fetus is an individual human being. A cell from a human, be it a cancer cell or a gamete, is NOT.

Legally, a human being is a person, and fetuses are not persons. That wasn't the question, however. The criteria was "human life" and a gamete is "human life" as much as you are.

So are you really claiming that a pollen grain is an individual plant, just like a seed?

We're talking about humans.

 

[Throckmorton]

Birth as the start of personhood has no basis in biology. It's an arbitrary legal and cultural definition. A birth certificate is issued at birth and a name and social security number assigned. Churches don't baptize fetuses, they baptize babies (so being an atheist, the the process of birth has no significance to personhood for me).
To the Ancient Greeks, personhood didn't begin until some time after birth. Therefore they considered it morally acceptable to perform a post-birth abortion by exposing a newborn to the elements.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is on a basic respect for persons that morality exists (empirically) across civilizations and cultures; It is only in re-defining 'person' that we find a basis on which people have historically justified killing what we now view as 'persons'. It seems clear, then, that we should never ascribe non-person-hood to any independent human life.

Clear as mud.

It seems you are overlooking the differentiation central to the argument. No one is arguing that a sperm of egg cell that can not become a viable infant alone is an independent human life worth given the rights of person-hood to.

You need to be more rigorous in your use of terms, like I have said since the beginning. Now you're introducing this new, ill-defined attribute "independent" like I wouldn't notice.

The difference between the egg and the fertilized, growing and viable fetus is that the egg is not a unique human life; while the fetus is.

How so? The genome of the unfertilized egg is like no other. How is that not unique?

Historically we have not ascribed 'person-hood' to what we knew to be unique human life in order to justify eliminating said humans when inconvenient and every time we have been wrong to do so.

Simply false. It's very easy to manipulate the genome of a human tissue sample to create a "unique" genome in live human tissue, and after the researcher is done doing so, that tissue will get flushed down a waste drain. Is that murder? It's the destruction of unique human life.

If a person is going to kill you, you have a right to kill that person first; If a woman is about to be killed by a fetus then the she has a right to kill the fetus first.

If a person threatened my bodily integrity I could use lethal force if necessary to prevent it.

[qoute]Spontaneous abortion usually occurs because of genetic or environmental factors that make the poor life unable to become an independent viable baby. Because nature eliminates the lives of those incapable of living in it does not justify us removing person-hood from said lives: otherwise it would be a fair argument to enslave people that "would have been eaten by a Lion anyway".[/QUOTE]
Cool story, bro.

 

[Throckmorton]

Legally, a human being is a person, and fetuses are not persons.

Yes, legally a newborn baby is a person whereas it was not a person a minute before. Otherwise abortion would be automatically illegal.That has no relevance to the moral issue.

That wasn't the question, however. The criteria was "human life" and a gamete is "human life" as much as you are.

A gamete is not a human.

We're talking about humans.

It's exactly the same. A new plant is not created until the pollen grain fertilizes an egg. And a seed is not any less a distinct and individual plant than a sprouted seed, a sapling, or a full grown tree.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Birth as the start of personhood has no basis in biology.

But we are not having a biological debate, because "person" is not a biolgical term.

It's an arbitrary legal and cultural definition. A birth certificate is issued at birth and a name and social security number assigned. Churches don't baptize fetuses, they baptize babies (so being an atheist, the the process of birth has no significance to personhood for me).
To the Ancient Greeks, personhood didn't begin until some time after birth. Therefore they considered it morally acceptable to perform a post-birth abortion by exposing a newborn to the elements.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes, legally a newborn baby is a person whereas it was not a person a minute before. Otherwise abortion would be automatically illegal.That has no relevance to the moral issue.

I'm not having a moral debate. I don't care how anybody feels about abortions, as long as it is legal.

A gamete is not a human.

You're moving the goalposts, and equivocating. This is why my first post in this thread was about the rigorous use of terms, and that point was apparently lost on you. DixyCrat said nothing about "a human." He simply said "human life." "A human" is short for "a human being," which is just another way of saying "person."

It's exactly the same.

No, I don't think it is.

A new plant is not created until the pollen grain fertilizes an egg. And a seed is not any less a distinct and individual plant than a sprouted seed, a sapling, or a full grown tree.

To the best of my knowledge, pollen grains do not metabolize whereas gametes do. I would not be surprised to find out that I am wrong about this, incidentally, but it is beside the point. I know that gametes are living, but I can't be as certain about pollen. This is all wholly irrelevant because where pollen grains are as living as I know gametes to be, then yes, it is the same, and yes, pollen grains are as much plant life and gametes are human life.

Great job managing to fail for so long, though.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm not having a moral debate. I don't care how anybody feels about abortions, as long as it is legal.

Then why are you arguing?

You're moving the goalposts, and equivocating. This is why my first post in this thread was about the rigorous use of terms, and that point was apparently lost on you. DixyCrat said nothing about "a human." He simply said "human life." "A human" is short for "a human being," which is just another way of saying "person."

You're confusing the legal definition of personhood with the biological definition of humanhood, planthood, and animalhood.

No, I don't think it is.


To the best of my knowledge, pollen grains do not metabolize whereas gametes do. I would not be surprised to find out that I am wrong about this, incidentally, but it is beside the point. I know that gametes are living, but I can't be as certain about pollen. This is all wholly irrelevant because where pollen grains are as living as I know gametes to be, then yes, it is the same, and yes, pollen grains are as much plant life and gametes are human life.

Great job managing to fail for so long, though.

A gamete is a living cell, not a plant or an animal. It's a carrier of half a set of DNA whose only purpose is to combine with another gamete.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Then why are you arguing?

Because you have made claims which are false.

You're confusing the legal definition of personhood with the biological definition of humanhood, planthood, and animalhood.

I assure you, it is not I that is confused about his terms.

A gamete is a living cell, not a plant or an animal.

I never suggested otherwise.

It's a carrier of half a set of DNA whose only purpose is to combine with another gamete.

We do not talk about an object's purpose, because purpose is subjective. Apart from that you haven't said anything of consequence.

 

[werepossum]

Legally, a human being is a person, and fetuses are not persons. That wasn't the question, however. The criteria was "human life" and a gamete is "human life" as much as you are.

We're talking about humans.

That's not quite true. If one causes death or damage to a pregnant woman's fetus, one can legally be prosecuted for that damage regardless of whether or not the pregnant woman was harmed. Murder a pregnant woman, get charged with a double homicide. Subject a pregnant woman to a non-lethal beating that causes spontaneous abortion, get charged with a single homicide.

The law recognizes that a fetus is a person. It simply recognizes that another person (the pregnant woman carrying that fetus) is also a person, and that under some conditions the pregnant woman's rights overrule the rights of the fetus. A similar situation exists if you need a liver transplant; you and I are both recognized as persons, but the law will not force me to give you a lobe of my liver.

 

[Scotteq]

If a woman has the freedom to become pregnant of her own volition, then equally she has the freedom to become unpregnant of her own volition. As much as no one can force her to become pregnant against her will, no one can force her to remain pregnant against her will.

These are the facts. They are not going away, so you'd better get used to them.

The correct thing would be to admit that a fetus is a human being with its own distinct DNA and individual body, but that abortion should be legal because the state can't force a woman to be an incubator for a separate person.

....pages of pointless arguing


wasted...

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm for whatever saves the most lives because I believe human life has value (I don't think there are many that disagree).

I've often found it interesting that a lot of leftist are on the side against things like vivisection, animal cruelty, etc..., but have no problem slaughtering the unborn wholesale for the convenience of irresponsibility. Not necessarily you, just something I thought reading that.

 

[Scotteq]

I've often found it interesting that a lot of leftist are on the side against things like vivisection, animal cruelty, etc..., but have no problem slaughtering the unborn wholesale for the convenience of irresponsibility. Not necessarily you, just something I thought reading that.

..the animals the Left want to Cruelly Vivisect are called "Republicans". And no, there indeed would be no problem slaughtering them wholesale.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's not quite true.

I'm pretty sure it is.

If one causes death or damage to a pregnant woman's fetus, one can legally be prosecuted for that damage regardless of whether or not the pregnant woman was harmed. Murder a pregnant woman, get charged with a double homicide. Subject a pregnant woman to a non-lethal beating that causes spontaneous abortion, get charged with a single homicide.

I know that in California this is the case because fetuses are named in addition to and as distinct from persons in the penal code murder statutes. If you can find a state in which the above is true yet fetuses are not so distinguished, you may have a point in that state. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade did not acknowledge fetal personhood, and quite clearly the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution does not include fetuses.

{snip}

It simply recognizes that another person (the pregnant woman carrying that fetus) is also a person, and that under some conditions the pregnant woman's rights overrule the rights of the fetus. A similar situation exists if you need a liver transplant; you and I are both recognized as persons, but the law will not force me to give you a lobe of my liver.

This is certainly true, and why even extending personhood to fetuses would not justify an abortion ban.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I've often found it interesting that a lot of leftist are on the side against things like vivisection, animal cruelty, etc..., but have no problem slaughtering the unborn wholesale for the convenience of irresponsibility. Not necessarily you, just something I thought reading that.

I've often found it interesting how often the right runs out of meritorious arguments and quickly resorts to demonizing its opponents with false caricatures.

If you think that I'm not troubled by any number of abortions in this country greater than zero, you are sorely mistaken. I think there are a great number of measures which could reduce the demand for abortions (which, ironically, are generally thwarted by the religious right), but selling out the fundamental rights of other legitimate persons is not a measure I'm willing to take.

Curious that you appear to be so willing, yet somehow we're the "bad guys." :hmm: