Saddleback point: At what point is a life a life?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
The question was: At what point does a baby get human rights?

My answer: When it is born.

They're both giving silly answers. Why are presidential candidates arguing about abortion or their faith anyway? :confused:
Because a section of voters believe that to be their main issue, or certainly an important issue on their political agenda.


Originally posted by: Conky
Originally posted by: Colt45
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one... simple enough, yeah?

Abortions or not is not the issue here.
Yes it is. The whole point of raising the conception issue in any political sphere is tacitly tying the discussion to the abortion issue.

Colt45 has it right. If you don't believe in abortion don;t have one. There are others whose culture / faith does not address the issue as Christianity does.. Why should they be forced to give up their choices just because a majority if Christian voters feel so.

Abortion is a social issue more than anything... I really don't think the Constitution addresses it. Supporting states' ability to legislate it is the best compromise IMO, given that some states are more socially conservative than others and they should be able to legislate based on what the populace wants.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
My response:

Life starts at conception. The DNA has mixed and the cells start to reproduce with its own unique charactistics found in that DNA. Life has started there, every definition of life is there. The only thing is that this life is dependant on is a host. A parasite is still life, even if its sucking the blood of a host. Taking a parasite away from the host will mean it dies, but doesn't that mean it was originally alive? Or does that mean the parasite was never alive to begin with?

Life starts at conception. Not before, not after. Just because that life was dependant on the blood of the host the first 9 months, and dependant on the host by other means for 18 years after, doesn't mean its not life by any means that I'm aware of.

But I suppose in liberal pro evolution animal kingdom saving nonsense, its not life until its 18 and paying taxes for the poor povery sticken people of this world.

Now if the question is, when does that life get rights to live, that is largely subjective. Most will think a tick is not worth living if its sucking the blood of a host. They stomp on it, ignite it with a flame thrower, whatever. But morally speaking. The mother is not infected by a random creature walking on this planet. The mother has made a choice to get "infected by this parasite" (known as a fetus), so I think she needs to take responsibility for it.

Its not a tick, its a human being. A mother has a choice with birth control, etc to prevent conception and this from happening. Apparently she doesn't care if she got pregnant, so I think its murder if she goes and kills her baby in some form.

An analogy would be: You decided to babysit for your friend for a day. The mother was out grocery shopping got into a car accident and died. The baby is now yours (provided no other family could be found)... Is it ok for you to kill the baby because you never wanted it to begin with? Or do you have a moral responsibility to take care of it even if you wanted it or not?

Are laws are there because of morality. Do not kill is a moral law. Do not steal is a moral law. Even though the situation is the same in the last paragraph as getting pregnant with a kid you don't want, one would be murder, the other isn't.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Conky
Human life begins at conception, and this is strictly speaking from a scientific point of view.

Which is why we are all legally 9 months older than our actual birth certificate indicates.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
The question was: At what point does a baby get human rights?

My answer: When it is born.

They're both giving silly answers. Why are presidential candidates arguing about abortion or their faith anyway? :confused:
Because a section of voters believe that to be their main issue, or certainly an important issue on their political agenda.


Originally posted by: Conky
Originally posted by: Colt45
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one... simple enough, yeah?

Abortions or not is not the issue here.
Yes it is. The whole point of raising the conception issue in any political sphere is tacitly tying the discussion to the abortion issue.

Colt45 has it right. If you don't believe in abortion don;t have one. There are others whose culture / faith does not address the issue as Christianity does.. Why should they be forced to give up their choices just because a majority if Christian voters feel so.

Abortion is a social issue more than anything... I really don't think the Constitution addresses it. Supporting states' ability to legislate it is the best compromise IMO, given that some states are more socially conservative than others and they should be able to legislate based on what the populace wants.
Yeah right. What about if the Fetus is conceived in one state does it fall under the jurisdiction of that state and the mother can't go to another state to have an abortion? I can see Moral Interventionists falling all over themselves trying to prevent a woman from traveling to another state where abortion is legal to have the procedure done.
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Personally, I don't care if there are 1st trimester abortions. If I ever met a woman who told me she had a 3rd trimester/partial birth abortion I would definitely pass judgment and probably call her a fvcking disgrace to the human race.

That said, personally (I'm NOT religious) I believe it should not be allowed for post Trimester 1....but if a woman wants to kill off her own baby then that's her choice. I hope they have more emotional harm doing that than actually delivering selflessly and putting him/her up for adoption.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Personally, I don't care if there are 1st trimester abortions. If I ever met a woman who told me she had a 3rd trimester/partial birth abortion I would definitely pass judgment and probably call her a fvcking disgrace to the human race.

That said, personally (I'm NOT religious) I believe it should not be allowed for post Trimester 1....but if a woman wants to kill off her own baby then that's her choice. I hope they have more emotional harm doing that than actually delivering selflessly and putting him/her up for adoption.
So you're Pro Choice you just hope the choice is that the woman would have the baby.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it is life once it's viable outside the womb... I'm strongly, strongly against 3rd term abortions.

But if we somehow absolutely, positively know that the fetus will grow up to be terrorist with a ticking time bomb, is it okay for the CIA to perform third-trimester waterboarding?
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Personally, I don't care if there are 1st trimester abortions. If I ever met a woman who told me she had a 3rd trimester/partial birth abortion I would definitely pass judgment and probably call her a fvcking disgrace to the human race.

That said, personally (I'm NOT religious) I believe it should not be allowed for post Trimester 1....but if a woman wants to kill off her own baby then that's her choice. I hope they have more emotional harm doing that than actually delivering selflessly and putting him/her up for adoption.
So you're Pro Choice you just hope the choice is that the woman would have the baby.

Pretty much. I still have my own thoughts on what scum women who have partial birth/3rd Trimester abortions....but that's where I stop, in my head, with my own judgments.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Personally, I don't care if there are 1st trimester abortions. If I ever met a woman who told me she had a 3rd trimester/partial birth abortion I would definitely pass judgment and probably call her a fvcking disgrace to the human race.

That said, personally (I'm NOT religious) I believe it should not be allowed for post Trimester 1....but if a woman wants to kill off her own baby then that's her choice. I hope they have more emotional harm doing that than actually delivering selflessly and putting him/her up for adoption.
So you're Pro Choice you just hope the choice is that the woman would have the baby.

Pretty much. I still have my own thoughts on what scum women who have partial birth/3rd Trimester abortions....but that's where I stop, in my head, with my own judgments.
Third Trimester/Partial Birth abortions for the most part are only done in cases of emergency.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Life begins when the fetus can survive outside the womb and be a normal, healthy baby.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why is abortion such a big deal to some people? :confused:

An unborn baby has no rights, it's not a citizen. Abortion must be legal.

Because some religious folks believe that abortion is the most important issue. If Candidate A says "I'm going to chop off the left arm of every citizen, raise taxes 200%, abolish public schools, and get roe v. wade overturned" and Candidate B says "I'm pro-abortion", then for those people, the candidate A isn't committing a cardinal sin when he's anti-abortion, therefore they are compelled to vote for A. I wish I could find the editorial I read recently from someone in that group (and, a seemingly very intelligent person) - it was rather scary to gain more insight into how they choose who to vote for.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
The question was: At what point does a baby get human rights?

My answer: When it is born.

They're both giving silly answers. Why are presidential candidates arguing about abortion or their faith anyway? :confused:
Because a section of voters believe that to be their main issue, or certainly an important issue on their political agenda.


Originally posted by: Conky
Originally posted by: Colt45
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one... simple enough, yeah?

Abortions or not is not the issue here.
Yes it is. The whole point of raising the conception issue in any political sphere is tacitly tying the discussion to the abortion issue.

Colt45 has it right. If you don't believe in abortion don;t have one. There are others whose culture / faith does not address the issue as Christianity does.. Why should they be forced to give up their choices just because a majority if Christian voters feel so.

Kind of like people forced into tiny cars to satisfy the environuts.

Either way, abortions get rid of probable Democratic voters in mostly Democratic areas of the country.

No one is forced into tiny cars. Big cars, SUVs trucks are all available for sale at almost every dealership in the country. What kind of vehicle we buy is a choice each one of us makes.

Abortions only among democratic voters? Not really
http://www.johnstonsarchive.ne...n/mapstatesabrate.html

If you want more detailed stats go here and check for any state you want:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/s...states/statesindex.asp
(This is a pro life site)



 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Disgusting Republicans getting more disgusting everyday:

8-17-2008 Group wants to attack Obama on abortion

RICHMOND, Va. - A group purporting to tell the "real truth" about Barack Obama's views on abortion wants a judge to rule it is not subject to federal election restrictions on fundraising and advertising.

The Real Truth About Obama Inc., a group formed by anti-abortion activists, is trying to establish a Web site and air radio ads. But the group's attorney says his clients fear they will be prosecuted for breaking federal rules that restrict fundraising and advertising by political action committees, or PACs.

The Richmond-based group argues it is not a PAC because it would be talking about an issue, not advocating Obama's defeat or election.

U.S. District Judge James Spencer has scheduled a Sept. 10 hearing on a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department from imposing the restrictions.

"The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that you are free to discuss the petitions of candidates on issues and how officials have voted in office without being subject to campaign finance restrictions," said the organization's attorney, James Bopp Jr. of Terre Haute, Ind.

The high court, in a 5-4 decision last year, upheld a lower court's ruling that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 election.

The Real Truth About Obama wants to post ads on its Web site and on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talk shows in key states during the "electioneering communication" blackout period 60 days before the general election.

The ad features an "Obama-like voice" saying he would make taxpayers pay for all abortions, ensure minors' abortions are concealed from their parents, appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices and legalize the late-term procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth" abortion.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Personally, I don't care if there are 1st trimester abortions. If I ever met a woman who told me she had a 3rd trimester/partial birth abortion I would definitely pass judgment and probably call her a fvcking disgrace to the human race.

That said, personally (I'm NOT religious) I believe it should not be allowed for post Trimester 1....but if a woman wants to kill off her own baby then that's her choice. I hope they have more emotional harm doing that than actually delivering selflessly and putting him/her up for adoption.
So you're Pro Choice you just hope the choice is that the woman would have the baby.

Pretty much. I still have my own thoughts on what scum women who have partial birth/3rd Trimester abortions....but that's where I stop, in my head, with my own judgments.

Thats a reasonable position. You can think all bad you want to about people who have abortions - that is one thing. But to force them to conform to your opinions (which are grounded in religious edicts) is another thing altogether.


 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Personally, I don't care if there are 1st trimester abortions. If I ever met a woman who told me she had a 3rd trimester/partial birth abortion I would definitely pass judgment and probably call her a fvcking disgrace to the human race.

That said, personally (I'm NOT religious) I believe it should not be allowed for post Trimester 1....but if a woman wants to kill off her own baby then that's her choice. I hope they have more emotional harm doing that than actually delivering selflessly and putting him/her up for adoption.
So you're Pro Choice you just hope the choice is that the woman would have the baby.

Pretty much. I still have my own thoughts on what scum women who have partial birth/3rd Trimester abortions....but that's where I stop, in my head, with my own judgments.

Thats a reasonable position. You can think all bad you want to about people who have abortions - that is one thing. But to force them to conform to your opinions (which are grounded in religious edicts) is another thing altogether.

It's not so black and white though. Government cannot look down on you due to your religion. They also are supposed to represent the wants and needs of the American people. It simply is not so clear as to block out anything grounded in religious edicts from domestic policy just because of religious reasons.

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
The premise of the question is flawed.

You are wanting a quantified scientific answer for a philosophical question.

You might as well ask "When was God born" and shout down anyone that is unable to give you a date.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Personally, I don't care if there are 1st trimester abortions. If I ever met a woman who told me she had a 3rd trimester/partial birth abortion I would definitely pass judgment and probably call her a fvcking disgrace to the human race.

That said, personally (I'm NOT religious) I believe it should not be allowed for post Trimester 1....but if a woman wants to kill off her own baby then that's her choice. I hope they have more emotional harm doing that than actually delivering selflessly and putting him/her up for adoption.
So you're Pro Choice you just hope the choice is that the woman would have the baby.

Pretty much. I still have my own thoughts on what scum women who have partial birth/3rd Trimester abortions....but that's where I stop, in my head, with my own judgments.

Thats a reasonable position. You can think all bad you want to about people who have abortions - that is one thing. But to force them to conform to your opinions (which are grounded in religious edicts) is another thing altogether.

It's not so black and white though. Government cannot look down on you due to your religion. They also are supposed to represent the wants and needs of the American people. It simply is not so clear as to block out anything grounded in religious edicts from domestic policy just because of religious reasons.

The wants and needs of who? The majority? Thats not what this country is all about. Minority rights have their place too.

Truth be told there is never going to be any one compromise stand on issues like this. There's always going to be 2 sides. Just depends how far you want to take it. I personally fall on the side of live & let live (pun NOT intended)! To each his own.


 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Q. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

MCCAIN: "At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment, that's my commitment to you."

OBAMA: "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one. But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground -- and by the way I have now inserted this into the Democrat party platform -- is how do we reduce the number of abortions because the fact is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down. ... I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate. And I respect their views. I mean, one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you. What I can do is say are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducting the sense that women are seeking out abortions, and as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need. Have we given them the support services that they need. Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary. That I think can make a genuine difference."
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Pro-life is the anti-abortion cop out, becuase they are not for prenatal care, child care, health care, education, or any other benefit for the mother and child. Just punish a woman by bearing an unwanted child.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Colt45
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one... simple enough, yeah?
If you don't want to murder anyone, don't murder anyone. Simple enough, yeah?

Great theory, unless it happens that someone else does want to murder someone. Then you need to develop a theory of why murder is right or wrong to legislate who will get their way. Moral relativism FTL.
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Pro-life is the anti-abortion cop out, becuase they are not for prenatal care, child care, health care, education, or any other benefit for the mother and child. Just punish a woman by bearing an unwanted child.

:confused:

I'm not "anti-abortion", but your comments on this issue are pretty damn stupid. Who is not for prenatal care, child care, health care, education, etc etc?

You almost make it seem like abortion is a morally acceptable form of birth control.
 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Pro-life is the anti-abortion cop out, becuase they are not for prenatal care, child care, health care, education, or any other benefit for the mother and child. Just punish a woman by bearing an unwanted child.

:confused:

I'm not "anti-abortion", but your comments on this issue are pretty damn stupid. Who is not for prenatal care, child care, health care, education, etc etc?

You almost make it seem like abortion is a morally acceptable form of birth control.

A good 40-50% of this country.
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: bdude
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Pro-life is the anti-abortion cop out, becuase they are not for prenatal care, child care, health care, education, or any other benefit for the mother and child. Just punish a woman by bearing an unwanted child.

:confused:

I'm not "anti-abortion", but your comments on this issue are pretty damn stupid. Who is not for prenatal care, child care, health care, education, etc etc?

You almost make it seem like abortion is a morally acceptable form of birth control.

A good 40-50% of this country.

BS
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Colt45
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one... simple enough, yeah?
If you don't want to murder anyone, don't murder anyone. Simple enough, yeah?

Great theory, unless it happens that someone else does want to murder someone. Then you need to develop a theory of why murder is right or wrong to legislate who will get their way. Moral relativism FTL.

Abortion is not the same as murder.

Murder is the killing of a legally defined human being.

A fetus is not a legally defined human being. Only becomes one after birth.

Big difference.