Open minded pro-choicer does a nice thing for pro-lifers.

[Doc Savage Fan]

And I agree with that usage. A human zygote and a human fetus are human lives. But they're not persons. If you want to protect the lives of innocent people, you won't get an argument from me. But equating zygotes and fetuses with innocent people is madness.

Some might say these human lives are innocent regardless of developmental stage.

If anything is madness here...it's semantics games.

 

[Tom]

Reading - it really IS fundamental. Spell check isn't bad either.

Some might say these human lives are innocent regardless of developmental stage.

If anything is madness here...it's semantics games.

sperm is innocent too.

 

[her209]

Some might say these human lives are innocent regardless of developmental stage.

If anything is madness here...it's semantics games.

Err except when the human life is the result of rape or endangers the life of the mother.

 

[bfdd]

May I answer this?

I believe late-second-trimester (and later) abortions can rarely be justified. But "rarely" isn't the same as "never."

Do you believe that a woman in the second term whose life is in severe jeopardy because of her pregnancy should be forced to die to carry her fetus to viability?

This is pretty much my position as well. I do think we need better education on abortion though, there's far to many people who think about it like contraceptive and it shouldn't be. Abortion takes a much bigger toll on the system than even just the morning after pill.

 

[shira]

Some might say these human lives are innocent regardless of developmental stage.

If anything is madness here...it's semantics games.

It's not just a semantics game. "Human life" is a meaningless term unless it's given a context. Saying that a zygote is "innocent" and comparing it to a human baby coo-cooing in its crib is patently fraudulent. No one - and I refer even to the most ardent abortion opponents - in their heart of hearts thinks a zygote and a baby in its crib are the same thing.

Referring to a zygote or a fetus as a "baby" or "child" is demgoguery. Nothing more; nothing less.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"Human life" is a meaningless term unless it's given a context.

And therein lies the rub. I don't think it's a meaningless term...it is what it is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And therein lies the rub. I don't think it's a meaningless term...it is what it is.

It may not be meaningless per se, but it isn't sufficiently precise. It isn't rigorous enough.

Lots of things are "human life" -- tissue samples, cancerous tumors, cell cultures. None of those things are persons, however. They do not enjoy the protections that persons do. So, while calling an embryo "human life" may be stating the obvious, it is not tantamount to establishing its personhood, so it is not enough to establish that it has the rights that persons do.

Despite even that, however, no person, born or unborn, as it were, has an unqualified right to occupy the body of another person without that person's consent, nor does any person enjoy an unqualified right to forcibly respirate and extract nutrients from another person's bloodstream, nor to inject another person with hormones and waste. To disallow women to terminate their pregnancies is to endow zygotes, embryos and fetuses with rights that no other class of person enjoys. This is a plain violation of equal protection, and precisely why no abortion ban will withstand tests of Constitutionality.

Of course, The promise of a ban on abortion is incredibly more valuable to conservative politicians than the actual achievement of one, so the right-wing politicians will keep dangling this carrot in front of you to keep you voting against your own interests, and you're not smart enough to realize it. Congrats.

 

[spittledip]

Some might say these human lives are innocent regardless of developmental stage.

If anything is madness here...it's semantics games.

It's not just a semantics game. "Human life" is a meaningless term unless it's given a context. Saying that a zygote is "innocent" and comparing it to a human baby coo-cooing in its crib is patently fraudulent. No one - and I refer even to the most ardent abortion opponents - in their heart of hearts thinks a zygote and a baby in its crib are the same thing.

Referring to a zygote or a fetus as a "baby" or "child" is demgoguery. Nothing more; nothing less.

It is pointless for those who are atheists to argue with those who believe in God about abortion (and vice versa) b/c ultimately, for those who believe in God, it is God who gives the life value. It is completely logically consistent for someone who does not believe in God to think that the life of a "fetus" does not have value. It makes sense for Shira to say that context brings the value in a human life b/c there is no intrinsic value in a human life as an isolated phenomenon. If the mother decided the fetus had value, then it would have value. Ultimately, for those who believe in God, there is no intrinsic value in a human life either b/c the value comes from the fact that God says it has value.

Of course, I suppose it could be argued that the atheist father could decide the fetus has value to him, thereby giving it value. For those who are passionately anti-abortionists, i suppose they could also bring value to a fetus by declaring it has value. Context of relationship does not mean that much ultimately I suppose b/c you can have a relationship you choose to value or one that you choose not to value. It is an act of the will to value that can be brought about by life circumstances (i.e., relationships). I think if there is an argument to be had that would be fruitful at all, it would be defining what actually brings about value in a life.

 

[shira]

And therein lies the rub. I don't think it's a meaningless term...it is what it is.

"It is what it is" is a throw-away, meaningless statement. Yet the antecedent of "it" in that meaningless statement is the term "human life." Ergo, you obviously think "human life" is meaningless.

quod erat demonstrandum

 

[JSt0rm]

It may not be meaningless per se, but it isn't sufficiently precise. It isn't rigorous enough.

Lots of things are "human life" -- tissue samples, cancerous tumors, cell cultures. None of those things are persons, however. They do not enjoy the protections that persons do. So, while calling an embryo "human life" may be stating the obvious, it is not tantamount to establishing its personhood, so it is not enough to establish that it has the rights that persons do.

Despite even that, however, no person, born or unborn, as it were, has an unqualified right to occupy the body of another person without that person's consent, nor does any person enjoy an unqualified right to forcibly respirate and extract nutrients from another person's bloodstream, nor to inject another person with hormones and waste. To disallow women to terminate their pregnancies is to endow zygotes, embryos and fetuses with rights that no other class of person enjoys. This is a plain violation of equal protection, and precisely why no abortion ban will withstand tests of Constitutionality.

Of course, The promise of a ban on abortion is incredibly more valuable to conservative politicians than the actual achievement of one, so the right-wing politicians will keep dangling this carrot in front of you to keep you voting against your own interests, and you're not smart enough to realize it. Congrats.

hahahaha excellent post :thumbsup:

 

[hal2kilo]

Some might say these human lives are innocent regardless of developmental stage.

If anything is madness here...it's semantics games.

Science will never answer have an answer for this question, it's philosophical in nature.

 

[shira]

It is pointless for those who are atheists to argue with those who believe in God about abortion (and vice versa) b/c ultimately, for those who believe in God, it is God who gives the life value. It is completely logically consistent for someone who does not believe in God to think that the life of a "fetus" does not have value. It makes sense for Shira to say that context brings the value in a human life b/c there is no intrinsic value in a human life as an isolated phenomenon. If the mother decided the fetus had value, then it would have value. Ultimately, for those who believe in God, there is no intrinsic value in a human life either b/c the value comes from the fact that God says it has value.

Of course, I suppose it could be argued that the atheist father could decide the fetus has value to him, thereby giving it value. For those who are passionately anti-abortionists, i suppose they could also bring value to a fetus by declaring it has value. Context of relationship does not mean that much ultimately I suppose b/c you can have a relationship you choose to value or one that you choose not to value. It is an act of the will to value that can be brought about by life circumstances (i.e., relationships). I think if there is an argument to be had that would be fruitful at all, it would be defining what actually brings about value in a life.

But anti-abortionists aren't saying a human fetus "has value." They're saying a human fetus has the full value of a baby in its crib.

The corollary is that pro-choicers aren't saying a human fetus has "no value." They're saying that whatever its value, during the early stages of pregnancy it's up to the woman to decide whether the value of the fetus outweighs its costs. And that during the later stages of pregnancy there are more parties that play a role in the evaluation.

You don't need to be an atheist to be pro-choice (in fact I'll bet that a large majority of those who are pro-choice aren't atheists). Just as you can believe in God yet not believe that God is responsible for human life, human morality, human values, or anything else in particular.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"It is what it is" is a throw-away, meaningless statement. Yet the antecedent of "it" in that meaningless statement is the term "human life." Ergo, you obviously think "human life" is meaningless.

quod erat demonstrandum

Sigh...you like to play little word games don't you.

BTW, I think spittledip head the nail on the head. It appears that the core of our differences revolves around when human life has value.

 

[JSt0rm]

Sigh...you like to play little word games don't you.

BTW, I think spittledip head the nail on the head. It appears that the core of our differences revolves around when human life has value.

No Cerpin Taxt hit the nail on the head. That was the best thing I read on the subject on these forums.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Science will never answer have an answer for this question, it's philosophical in nature.

Thank you. And I might add that our answer to this question profoundly defines us.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No Cerpin Taxt hit the nail on the head. That was the best thing I read on the subject on these forums.

Cerpin Taxt is an idiot...he assumes he knows what I think on a number of issues never discussed....issues he has no desire to discuss. His motives are clearly partisan in nature....and it's not surprising that you feel compelled to tell me that you agree with him.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt is an idiot...he assumes he knows what I think on a number of issues never discussed.

Where did I purport to know what you think? Are you sure you're reading a post actually submitted by me?

...issues he has no desire to discuss.

I'll discuss whatever you want. You're cordially invited to respond to the post I've already submitted, though I can't hardly imagine what you'd have to say.

His motives are clearly partisan in nature.

If listing indisputable facts is "partisan," according to you, then I humbly submit that Inigo Montoya has something he'd like to say to you.

 

[JSt0rm]

Cerpin Taxt is an idiot...he assumes he knows what I think on a number of issues never discussed....issues he has no desire to discuss. His motives are clearly partisan in nature....and it's not surprising that you feel compelled to tell me that you agree with him.

huh? His post was more lucid then anything you have written. Why dont you address his points instead of just calling him an idiot?

 

[spittledip]

But anti-abortionists aren't saying a human fetus "has value." They're saying a human fetus has the full value of a baby in its crib.

No, it is not a measure of how much value, it is an either or when pro-lifers talk about it. What pro-lifers say is either life has value or it does not.

The corollary is that pro-choicers aren't saying a human fetus has "no value." They're saying that whatever its value, during the early stages of pregnancy it's up to the woman to decide whether the value of the fetus outweighs its costs. And that during the later stages of pregnancy there are more parties that play a role in the evaluation.

And therein lies the core difference- a pro-lifer or theist would not say one life has more value than another- they would say all human life has value, period. Again, this goes back to what I said about an atheist assigning value to human life based upon circumstances.

You don't need to be an atheist to be pro-choice (in fact I'll bet that a large majority of those who are pro-choice aren't atheists). Just as you can believe in God yet not believe that God is responsible for human life, human morality, human values, or anything else in particular.

I don't disagree with what you are saying here. I was not saying anything contrary to what you are saying here either. I think we can agree that it is impossible to talk about anything like this without generalizing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Where did I purport to know what you think? Are you sure you're reading a post actually submitted by me?

"Of course, The promise of a ban on abortion is incredibly more valuable to conservative politicians than the actual achievement of one, so the right-wing politicians will keep dangling this carrot in front of you to keep you voting against your own interests, and you're not smart enough to realize it. Congrats."

You have no idea what I think on this subject...yet you somehow think you do and have made your conclusions about what I'm "not smart enough to realize". Is this one of the "irrefutable facts" you were referring to? You clearly want to make this a partisan issue...I don't. Take your bullshit somewhere else.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"Of course, The promise of a ban on abortion is incredibly more valuable to conservative politicians than the actual achievement of one, so the right-wing politicians will keep dangling this carrot in front of you to keep you voting against your own interests, and you're not smart enough to realize it. Congrats."

You have no idea what I think on this subject...yet you somehow think you do and have made your conclusions about what I'm "not smart enough to realize".

If it is your contention that you do realize that right-wing politicians flog this dead horse to reign in the votes of single-issue voters, you've certainly given no indication that this is the case. Feel free to clarify.

Is this one of the "irrefutable facts" you were referring too? You clearly want to make this a partisan issue...I don't. Take your bullshit somewhere else.

It is interesting that you would hone in on the parting shots of my post and not even so much as acknowledge the substantive portion of it that clearly refuted your suggestion that "human life" was a meaningful term in the context of the abortion debate. One can only presume it is because you realize you cannot dispute those facts, and would instead like to dismiss the entirety of my post as "partisan" in order to avoid confronting them.

If that isn't revealing, I don't know what is.

 

[dahunan]

Some might say these human lives are innocent regardless of developmental stage.

If anything is madness here...it's semantics games.

How about that weird semantics game called Parent.

gtfo of other lives and make sure yours is proper

 

[Mursilis]

No Cerpin Taxt hit the nail on the head. That was the best thing I read on the subject on these forums.

You're just easily impressed, and more easily flattered.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think so. If she wants to keep the baby and her parents object, tough shit. If she wants to abort and her parents object, tough shit.

It depends on the state in question. In the case of NM the consent of one parent is required.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OMCL.pdf

 

[Mursilis]

How about that weird semantics game called Parent.

gtfo of other lives and make sure yours is proper

This from a person who obsesses over the fact that someone, somewhere, might have said a prayer! Oh, the outrage!