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

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
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.

Why does the right rest with the mother? I've never heard a reasonable explanation for why this would ever be the case. As I said, government exists for the purpose of protecting the cardinal rights of all citizens (or persons, as they boil down to being equivalent). If you deny that a zygote/embryo/fetus has the right to life, you have to be able to demonstrate why they should not warrant rights. This is exactly why I posted my definition of a person. You cannot arbitrarily decide to rescind someone's rights, which is what you're suggesting. If you would err on the side of removing a mother's right, then you would accept that a zygote is a person. While this may actually be incorrect, it is the only way to be safe.

As an analogy, I would point out that I have spoken out several times regarding the situation in Gitmo with imprisonment without trial. The removal of the right to liberty (another of the cardinal rights that government exists to protect) without due process is deplorable. Even if 99% are terrorists, I would rather that they all be let go than imprison one wrongly. The same principle applies here. Government must always err on the side of protecting rather than rescinding rights of individuals, even if this could have negative consequences, since any consequences without the proof needed for conviction is, legally speaking, mere conjecture.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i said i would be pro-choice even if i did believe life starts at conception because it becomes a religious issue then.

How does it become a religious issue?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 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

So murderers should be allowed to murder because it's up to them to decide? I think there's a flaw in that logic, somehow. Maybe I can't see it because I'm religious. :roll:

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: 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)?

I'm sure sometime down the road, they'll be able to produce a baby totally outside the womb. Until then this will have to do. After 20-23 weeks, then the irresponsible party(in the sense they waited too long) should have to continue on with the pregnancy, with adoption as an option.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: KK
I'm sure sometime down the road, they'll be able to produce a baby totally outside the womb. Until then this will have to do. After 20-23 weeks, then the irresponsible party(in the sense they waited too long) should have to continue on with the pregnancy, with adoption as an option.

How can you wage a personal responsibility argument, then imply that personal responsibility should only be applied to a certain extent? Either they're responsible for their actions or they aren't.

 

[KidViciou$]

isn't the whole argument that life begins at conception a religious issue?

if not, how can a single cell be a person?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
isn't the whole argument that life begins at conception a religious issue?

if not, how can a single cell be a person?

I've already posted extensively on this question. The question that needs to be asked is not 'how can a single cell be a person' but 'how can you be sure that a single cell is not a person?' If you want to deny rights to any group, you have to prove why they should be denied rights. The burden of proof is not on them to prove that they should have rights.

 

[KidViciou$]

i was thinking about that also, after saying it. well yes, i guess i wouldn't want them to commit the "murder", meaning the mother aborting the fetus

but then it becomes an issue of me pushing my religious beliefs onto someone else, and that can't happen

the reason i don't have a problem with first trimester abortion is because i don't consider the fetus to be a human at that stage.

i think that at any stage where the fetus will be able to survive outside of the womb, even with the help of machines, and not be majorly debilitated due to the premature birth, is too late for an abortion

 

[KidViciou$]

the reason why a single cell is not a person is because a person is not a single cell

a person is a composition of different cellular structures working together.


if that's the case, then all the skin flakes that fall off our body everyday are little people, right?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: KK
I'm sure sometime down the road, they'll be able to produce a baby totally outside the womb. Until then this will have to do. After 20-23 weeks, then the irresponsible party(in the sense they waited too long) should have to continue on with the pregnancy, with adoption as an option.

How can you wage a personal responsibility argument, then imply that personal responsibility should only be applied to a certain extent? Either they're responsible for their actions or they aren't.

Believe me, if they got pregnant when they didn't want to(excluding rape and such) they are totally irresponsible. But if they wait too long to get an abortion they are stupid and irresponsible, thus should give their child up for adoption imo.

I don't know if that is what you were trying to ask or not. Let me know if I took your question the wrong direction.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Why does the right rest with the mother? I've never heard a reasonable explanation for why this would ever be the case. As I said, government exists for the purpose of protecting the cardinal rights of all citizens (or persons, as they boil down to being equivalent). If you deny that a zygote/embryo/fetus has the right to life, you have to be able to demonstrate why they should not warrant rights. This is exactly why I posted my definition of a person. You cannot arbitrarily decide to rescind someone's rights, which is what you're suggesting. If you would err on the side of removing a mother's right, then you would accept that a zygote is a person. While this may actually be incorrect, it is the only way to be safe.

Since the government exists to protect the rights of all persons (and as you said fertilized egg = citizen) then the government should start butting its head in the abortion business (as I'm sure you would suggest) the in vitro fertilization business (thousands of citizens die every year due to these techniques), and hell, even the sex business (think of all the citizen deaths because an egg can't implant in the uterus - well the gov. should be there to protect the cardinal rights of these citizens).

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
isn't the whole argument that life begins at conception a religious issue?

if not, how can a single cell be a person?

I've already posted extensively on this question. The question that needs to be asked is not 'how can a single cell be a person' but 'how can you be sure that a single cell is not a person?' If you want to deny rights to any group, you have to prove why they should be denied rights. The burden of proof is not on them to prove that they should have rights.

So killing sperm is killing a potential human being? Where are the sperms rights?

 

[KidViciou$]

no no KK, you don't get it! i'll put it in VHDL terms since i'm currently reading computer architecture

human := sperm AND egg after 1 ps;

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i was thinking about that also, after saying it. well yes, i guess i wouldn't want them to commit the "murder", meaning the mother aborting the fetus

but then it becomes an issue of me pushing my religious beliefs onto someone else, and that can't happen

the reason i don't have a problem with first trimester abortion is because i don't consider the fetus to be a human at that stage.

i think that at any stage where the fetus will be able to survive outside of the womb, even with the help of machines, and not be majorly debilitated due to the premature birth, is too late for an abortion

Your governing assumption is inherently flawed. Thus, so is your final analysis. You can't assume that the only argument against abortion is religiously based. This is simply false.

the reason why a single cell is not a person is because a person is not a single cell

a person is a composition of different cellular structures working together.


if that's the case, then all the skin flakes that fall off our body everyday are little people, right?

You're not religious because you're a logical being, correct? Then you should obviously see the circularity of your first statement. It is X because it is X. Even I, a religious person (who, according to you, must be devoid of logic) can clearly see this one a mile away.

At what point will you decide that this complex network that you describe be established? I have already reasoned in this thread why there is a significant difference between a zygote and skin flakes.

Originally posted by: KK
Believe me, if they got pregnant when they didn't want to(excluding rape and such) they are totally irresponsible. But if they wait too long to get an abortion they are stupid and irresponsible, thus should give their child up for adoption imo.

I don't know if that is what you were trying to ask or not. Let me know if I took your question the wrong direction.

I'm just asking why you would only enforce personal responsibility part way. In over 99.9% of abortions, the mother's pregnancy is a direct result of her consenting actions.

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Since the government exists to protect the rights of all persons (and as you said fertilized egg = citizen) then the government should start butting its head in the abortion business (as I'm sure you would suggest) the in vitro fertilization business (thousands of citizens die every year due to these techniques), and hell, even the sex business (think of all the citizen deaths because an egg can't implant in the uterus - well the gov. should be there to protect the cardinal rights of these citizens).

I can argue against in vitro fertilization, but that discussion is really exactly analogous to this one. The root of the problem is how we define a person. If an embryo is a person, then freezing embryos ad infinitum is obviously wrong. Thus, there is no contradiction here.

The government cannot regulate nature. It may only regulate man's interaction with nature (e.g. the morning-after pill, which is analagous to pollution, if you want to look at it in this way, since it directly interferes with natural processes). Thus, the argument that the government is required to regulate these things as you imply is incorrect.

Originally posted by: KK
So killing sperm is killing a potential human being? Where are the sperms rights?

I already reasoned why sperm are not human/potentially human. They are not distinct beings with their own peculiar DNA. Same reason skin flakes are not humans/potential humans. They are merely part of a whole, as obviated by the genetics of each respective cell.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: KK
Believe me, if they got pregnant when they didn't want to(excluding rape and such) they are totally irresponsible. But if they wait too long to get an abortion they are stupid and irresponsible, thus should give their child up for adoption imo.

I don't know if that is what you were trying to ask or not. Let me know if I took your question the wrong direction.

I'm just asking why you would only enforce personal responsibility part way. In over 99.9% of abortions, the mother's pregnancy is a direct result of her consenting actions.

I don't think responsibility really plays much into the debate as to when it is considered viable to have an abortion and when its not. I feel that if the mother can kill herself and the fetus can't survive then it's no different than if she just had an abortion. Yes, that's extreme using the suicide option, but the fetus is dependant upon the host, and at that time that the fetus is solely dependant upon the host, and it's the woman choice as to what she does with her body. That's just the way I feel about it, I don't expect everyone to buy into it, but I don't think anyone should tell someone what they can or can't do with their body.

Originally posted by: KK
So killing sperm is killing a potential human being? Where are the sperms rights?

I already reasoned why sperm are not human/potentially human. They are not distinct beings with their own peculiar DNA. Same reason skin flakes are not humans/potential humans. They are merely part of a whole, as obviated by the genetics of each respective cell.

Are the sperm alive?

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
isn't the whole argument that life begins at conception a religious issue?

No.

I know at least three Atheists that believe [human] life begins at conception.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: 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)?

I'm sure sometime down the road, they'll be able to produce a baby totally outside the womb. Until then this will have to do. After 20-23 weeks, then the irresponsible party(in the sense they waited too long) should have to continue on with the pregnancy, with adoption as an option.

Your belief is then that life is defined by technology?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: 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)?

I'm sure sometime down the road, they'll be able to produce a baby totally outside the womb. Until then this will have to do. After 20-23 weeks, then the irresponsible party(in the sense they waited too long) should have to continue on with the pregnancy, with adoption as an option.

Your belief is then that life is defined by technology?

No, not really technology, but whether the fetus is dependant on the host and the woman's right to her body.

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i was thinking about that also, after saying it. well yes, i guess i wouldn't want them to commit the "murder", meaning the mother aborting the fetus

but then it becomes an issue of me pushing my religious beliefs onto someone else, and that can't happen

the reason i don't have a problem with first trimester abortion is because i don't consider the fetus to be a human at that stage.

i think that at any stage where the fetus will be able to survive outside of the womb, even with the help of machines, and not be majorly debilitated due to the premature birth, is too late for an abortion

Your governing assumption is inherently flawed. Thus, so is your final analysis. You can't assume that the only argument against abortion is religiously based. This is simply false.

the reason why a single cell is not a person is because a person is not a single cell

a person is a composition of different cellular structures working together.


if that's the case, then all the skin flakes that fall off our body everyday are little people, right?

You're not religious because you're a logical being, correct? Then you should obviously see the circularity of your first statement. It is X because it is X. Even I, a religious person (who, according to you, must be devoid of logic) can clearly see this one a mile away.

At what point will you decide that this complex network that you describe be established? I have already reasoned in this thread why there is a significant difference between a zygote and skin flakes.

Originally posted by: KK
Believe me, if they got pregnant when they didn't want to(excluding rape and such) they are totally irresponsible. But if they wait too long to get an abortion they are stupid and irresponsible, thus should give their child up for adoption imo.

I don't know if that is what you were trying to ask or not. Let me know if I took your question the wrong direction.

I'm just asking why you would only enforce personal responsibility part way. In over 99.9% of abortions, the mother's pregnancy is a direct result of her consenting actions.

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Since the government exists to protect the rights of all persons (and as you said fertilized egg = citizen) then the government should start butting its head in the abortion business (as I'm sure you would suggest) the in vitro fertilization business (thousands of citizens die every year due to these techniques), and hell, even the sex business (think of all the citizen deaths because an egg can't implant in the uterus - well the gov. should be there to protect the cardinal rights of these citizens).

I can argue against in vitro fertilization, but that discussion is really exactly analogous to this one. The root of the problem is how we define a person. If an embryo is a person, then freezing embryos ad infinitum is obviously wrong. Thus, there is no contradiction here.

The government cannot regulate nature. It may only regulate man's interaction with nature (e.g. the morning-after pill, which is analagous to pollution, if you want to look at it in this way, since it directly interferes with natural processes). Thus, the argument that the government is required to regulate these things as you imply is incorrect.

Originally posted by: KK
So killing sperm is killing a potential human being? Where are the sperms rights?

I already reasoned why sperm are not human/potentially human. They are not distinct beings with their own peculiar DNA. Same reason skin flakes are not humans/potential humans. They are merely part of a whole, as obviated by the genetics of each respective cell.

i actually made that statement in jest because it was circular, and arguing by definition. i should have made it clear that iwasn't really using that as part of my argument

unfortunately i haven't had time to read this entire thread, only a couple posts here and htere


the point that i decide the complex network is a person is when that person will be able to survive without major damage or defect due to it's premature birth

 

[Kadarin]

I am pro-choice either way. I believe "life" starts before conception...

But to me, "life" in this context is not what is important. What matters to me is when the intellect develops enough to where the fetus has sense of self. Before that, it's just raw material.

I believe choice is important, and I do NOT believe in legislating morality.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I am pro-choice either way. I believe "life" starts before conception...

But to me, "life" in this context is not what is important. What matters to me is when the intellect develops enough to where the fetus has sense of self. Before that, it's just raw material.

I believe choice is important, and I do NOT believe in legislating morality.

But haven't studies have shown that new born babies don't have a sense of self?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
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.

Why does the right rest with the mother? I've never heard a reasonable explanation for why this would ever be the case. As I said, government exists for the purpose of protecting the cardinal rights of all citizens (or persons, as they boil down to being equivalent). If you deny that a zygote/embryo/fetus has the right to life, you have to be able to demonstrate why they should not warrant rights. This is exactly why I posted my definition of a person. You cannot arbitrarily decide to rescind someone's rights, which is what you're suggesting. If you would err on the side of removing a mother's right, then you would accept that a zygote is a person. While this may actually be incorrect, it is the only way to be safe.

However, I would disagree with that choice.

The problem is that this isn't really a biological argument on any level. I don't believe that a newly conceived child has a right to life, and I DO believe that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy if she does it in a timely fashion. I'm not a big fan of abortions, and I certainly find using them as birth control to be pretty distasteful, but I don't think it should be illegal.

If it makes you feel any better (that I'm consistent) I don't think someone who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with a double-murder if she is early enough to still legally have an abortion.

 

[Pliablemoose]

It always kills me that old white men are making these laws, I'm pro choice, the choice should be the woman's, not a bunch of old white men.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: KK
I don't think responsibility really plays much into the debate as to when it is considered viable to have an abortion and when its not. I feel that if the mother can kill herself and the fetus can't survive then it's no different than if she just had an abortion. Yes, that's extreme using the suicide option, but the fetus is dependant upon the host, and at that time that the fetus is solely dependant upon the host, and it's the woman choice as to what she does with her body. That's just the way I feel about it, I don't expect everyone to buy into it, but I don't think anyone should tell someone what they can or can't do with their body.

The fetus would die at any time if the mother killed herself, short of a medical procedure to save the baby. A mother could also let her infant starve to death, as it's dependent on her. Are you going to allow that?

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I am pro-choice either way. I believe "life" starts before conception...

But to me, "life" in this context is not what is important. What matters to me is when the intellect develops enough to where the fetus has sense of self. Before that, it's just raw material.

I believe choice is important, and I do NOT believe in legislating morality.

So how will you ever know when intellect develops? Is it with the onset of measureable brainwaves? Can you ever really know when intellect develops? Your criteria is impossible to measure, but you're willing to give up a group's right to life based on it? I'd also like to see where morality has been used to suggest anything in this thread. Ethics may be, but not morality.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
However, I would disagree with that choice.

The problem is that this isn't really a biological argument on any level. I don't believe that a newly conceived child has a right to life, and I DO believe that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy if she does it in a timely fashion. I'm not a big fan of abortions, and I certainly find using them as birth control to be pretty distasteful, but I don't think it should be illegal.

If it makes you feel any better (that I'm consistent) I don't think someone who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with a double-murder if she is early enough to still legally have an abortion.

Then how DO you define a person? I already gave my answer and have yet to see anyone even try to argue with it by proposing an alternative.

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
It always kills me that old white men are making these laws, I'm pro choice, the choice should be the woman's, not a bunch of old white men.

Are old white men the guys running around killing people in the streets of Gary, Indiana or East St. Louis? No. Does that mean they shouldn't make laws against murder?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: KK
I don't think responsibility really plays much into the debate as to when it is considered viable to have an abortion and when its not. I feel that if the mother can kill herself and the fetus can't survive then it's no different than if she just had an abortion. Yes, that's extreme using the suicide option, but the fetus is dependant upon the host, and at that time that the fetus is solely dependant upon the host, and it's the woman choice as to what she does with her body. That's just the way I feel about it, I don't expect everyone to buy into it, but I don't think anyone should tell someone what they can or can't do with their body.

The fetus would die at any time if the mother killed herself, short of a medical procedure to save the baby. A mother could also let her infant starve to death, as it's dependent on her. Are you going to allow that?

No, but the infant isn't solely dependent on the mother after birth. Meaning that the infant could be cared for by anyone. I'll beat you to the next point that you would probably be going with that response. Implanted fertilized eggs. I wouldn't have a problem with the host instead of doing an abortion transplanting the egg into someone that may not be able to concieve, but that have to be up to the woman.