Question for Pro-Choicers from a Pro-Lifer - UPDATED with new question in OP

[AreaCode707]

If you believed that life DID start at conception, would you still be pro-choice?

I can easily see the pro-abortion view; if it's not a life then it's a choice. If I didn't believe that it was a life, then I would probably agree with it being a woman's choice. It's just that, as long as I believe life starts then I cannot in good conscience support abortion.

(Separate poll for Pro-Lifers.)

UPDATED QUESTION:
For those pro-choicers who voted that you would still be pro-choice if you believed that life started at conception, can you please explain to me your reasoning behind that? The most common logic I hear from pro-choicers is that there's nothing wrong with abortion because a fetus is not a baby. I'd be very interested to hear additional reasons on why you believe in choice even if a fetus was a baby.

Thanks!

 

[CycloWizard]

If I did - pro-life. If not, pro-choice.

The question asked deals with scientific fact, however, so saying that 'it' is not alive at conception is false.

 

[KK]

Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If I did - pro-life. If not, pro-choice.

The question asked deals with scientific fact, however, so saying that 'it' is not alive at conception is false.

It wasn't a question about what is or isn't though; it was a "what if" question.

Interesting results so far. It looks like the pro-life folks would be willing to switch their view if they didn't think that life started at conception, but it looks like that doesn't make much of a difference to pro-choice folks.

 

[Tab]

I hate this aborition isssue so much, why some people primarly vote on aborition reguardless of all other issuses? You cannot prove when life starts!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I hate this aborition isssue so much, why some people primarly vote on aborition reguardless of all other issuses? You cannot prove when life starts!

Read a biology book and try again.

 

[daveshel]

There's a big difference between being pro-choice and supporting abortion.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
I hate this aborition isssue so much, why some people primarly vote on aborition reguardless of all other issuses? You cannot prove when life starts!

Read a biology book and try again.

Or how about prove me wrong...

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If I did - pro-life. If not, pro-choice.

The question asked deals with scientific fact, however, so saying that 'it' is not alive at conception is false.

I think we're dealing first with a question of semantics and definition, and only then can we move into a question of scientific testing and fact. But to avoid starting a flamewar, YGPM.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Or how about prove me wrong...

I would assume that if you're interested in even possibly withholding the right to life of an individual, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that he/she is not alive. However, I can prove my stance and will do so to facilitate the argument.

According to the majority view, the question was not, as is often suggested, whether the embryo was alive and human, or whether, if implanted, it might eventually become a full human being. We conceded that all these things were true.

Warnock, Mary, A Question of Life, 1984 (published findings of an ethics committee in the UK)

If you want to define life in any way other than beginning at conception, it will be based on an arbitrary standard and is likely easily refuted using logic. If you want to read more, check the link in my sig. There are arguments that can be made for abortion, but whether or not 'it' is alive is not one of them.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

I've always held that belief as well.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If you want to define life in any way other than beginning at conception, it will be based on an arbitrary standard and is likely easily refuted using logic.

I agree - the problem is beaurocracy requires some arbitrary line in order to fundtion.

I don't disagree that a fetus is alive, but I also don't consider a just-conceived fetus to be necessarily 'human'.

At some point, the rights of the mother need to give way to the rights of the now-human fetus; when, exactly, this happens, I certainly don't feel qualified to assess. So I go with the utilitarian notion of 'early in the pregnancy, the mother should be allowed to choose' while 'later in the pregnancy, the choice has been made and the mother's responsibilities outweigh her rights'.

Sixe weeks? Two moths? One trimester? I'm certainly not going to try to judge this issue.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If you want to define life in any way other than beginning at conception, it will be based on an arbitrary standard and is likely easily refuted using logic.

I agree - the problem is beaurocracy requires some arbitrary line in order to fundtion.

I don't disagree that a fetus is alive, but I also don't consider a just-conceived fetus to be necessarily 'human'.

At some point, the rights of the mother need to give way to the rights of the now-human fetus; when, exactly, this happens, I certainly don't feel qualified to assess. So I go with the utilitarian notion of 'early in the pregnancy, the mother should be allowed to choose' while 'later in the pregnancy, the choice has been made and the mother's responsibilities outweigh her rights'.

Sixe weeks? Two moths? One trimester? I'm certainly not going to try to judge this issue.

Why does an arbitrary line need to be drawn in this case? When society does not give its protection to its most vulnerable, it loses its authority to protect anyone. In this case, drawing any such arbitrary line is especially dangerous as it deals directly with the most fundamental right of all - the right that government is actually constructed to protect - the right to life. Not something we should assume away with hand-waving arguments. Because of its importance, I certainly will judge this critical issue.

edit: Since I already typed it up once for a PM, I figured I'd post this to augment my position. Hope the OP doesn't mind the posting of part of a PM. If so let me know and I'll remove it. It is my PM, so I hope it's not against the rules.

Biologically speaking, life is an organism that is distinct and has its own genetic code (roughly, anyway ). This doesn't exclude twins, as they are still distinct beings despite having identical genetics. It is also clear that a zygote/embryo/fetus must then be alive because it has a separate genetic code from the mother, even if you did argue that it is not a distinct life, since it is dependent on the mother for survival. So, the problem arises in that philosophers and ethicists attempt to rationalize a difference between 'human life,' which a zygote/embryo/fetus is undeniably, and what is a 'person,' or an entity to which we can assign rights. This latter term (person) basically allows the possibility that not all 'humans' are 'persons', so not anything that is a human being may necessarily be worthy of possessing rights.

The attempt to define a person is much more involved and I have taken quite some time to do it. I'm a biomedical engineering grad student, so I've been interested in the ethics of medicine for some time. I took classes in it (which is how I learned all of the above paragraph ) and invested my own random thinking time into examining the problem. I made a couple posts on it here fairly recently.
Definition of 'person'
Corollary to the definition of 'person'

The first is my attempt to define what a person really is and on what basis we could limit bestowing rights on a human being. The second is my attempt to describe how government fills that role. The results seem obvious to me now, but were not before I had the argument with myself. Anyway, in case you don't want to read it all, basically personhood is warranted by all members of a species that exhibits the ability to choose.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why does an arbitrary line need to be drawn in this case? When society does not give its protection to its most vulnerable, it loses its authority to protect anyone. In this case, drawing any such arbitrary line is especially dangerous as it deals directly with the most fundamental right of all - the right that government is actually constructed to protect - the right to life. Not something we should assume away with hand-waving arguments. Because of its importance, I certainly will judge this critical issue.

The problem is that at some point I think the right still rests with the mother, and the fetus is not yet truly a human being. Perhaps there are concrete criteria that could narrow this down to the day and hour that it occurs, but I doubt it. Therefore there needs to be a decision on a 'cut-off' point. Given the uncertainty, I would acept a cut-off that attemppted to err on the side of harming the mother's rights rather than the child's, but I don't see any way it could realistically be anything other than arbitrary.

 

[AreaCode707]

Yay for a thread with no flaming so far! Does anybody have some thoughts on my update question though? I truly am curious to hear additional pro-choice reasoning and thoughts about the issue.

Thanks guys!

 

[Martin]

The view I and others have is that a single cell which has the potential to become a baby is not the same as a baby. A baby is a full human being, albeit a bit small. It has feelings, moods, is concious etc. A single cell is just that. So obviously, there is a point between conception and birth that the blastocyst /embryo/fetus becomes a human being. My knowledge of biology isn't that great, so I can't say excatly when that point comes about, though I would say that it would be somewhere before it has become an embryo, so maybe 3-4 weeks after conception.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

What do you mean by survive?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

What do you mean by survive?

If the mother died, could the fetus, or whatever you want to call it, survive if taken out.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

What do you mean by survive?

If the mother died, could the fetus, or whatever you want to call it, survive if taken out.

Yes, but what do you mean specifically by "survive"?

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

I've always held that belief as well.

I used to believe that, as well.... Until I saw an ultrasound of my son, in my wife's womb.

(My boys are six and ten now.) But you'll never convince me that they WEREN'T my sons prior to their delivery.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

What do you mean by survive?

If the mother died, could the fetus, or whatever you want to call it, survive if taken out.

Yes, but what do you mean specifically by "survive"?

If it was born premature, could the technology we have today keep it alive. I believe the cut off is somewhere between 20-23 weeks.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

I've always held that belief as well.

I used to believe that, as well.... Until I saw an ultrasound of my son, in my wife's womb.

(My boys are six and ten now.) But you'll never convince me that they WEREN'T my sons prior to their delivery.

And I wouldn't want anyone to convince you that they weren't.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

What do you mean by survive?

If the mother died, could the fetus, or whatever you want to call it, survive if taken out.

Yes, but what do you mean specifically by "survive"?

If it was born premature, could the technology we have today keep it alive. I believe the cut off is somewhere between 20-23 weeks.

Ok, so then "life" is different than being "alive"? And, as technology advances, "life" then begins earlier and earlier (untill, theoretically, it would start at conception once the technology gets there)?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: KK
Life starts when the baby can survive outside the womb.

 

[KidViciou$]

i said i would be pro-choice even if i did believe life starts at conception because it becomes a religious issue then. i would believe that those who get abortions are no better than murderers, and thus is up to them to decide what to do

but the reason i'm not religious is because i'm a logical being. so it's a catch 22