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

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Beyond all of the rhetoric on both sides, our legal system clearly does not define aborting a fetus to be murder, so given that our legal system is a rough mirror of our society's beliefs, we apparently believe that a fetus is NOT a human being deserving of all inherent rights bestowed upon us by the government.

Don't like it? Try and change it, but so far the effort to do so has been spectacularly unsuccessful.

I think the reason it has been unsuccessful is that the majority people support some form of abortion option, albeit with some restrictions placed on it (e.g. first trimester only, some don't like the lack of parental consent for girls under 18, etc.). The Republicans know this well, and thus they act to chip away at abortion, restrict it in some ways, but they know it would be political suicide to support a total outright ban.

In fact, the only ones supporting a total and complete ban are the usual extremists. "Fundies," if you will.

Our legal system is conflicted. If I were to kill a women at the doorstep of an abortion clinic. I may very well be charged with two counts of murder. So while you are correct in saying performing an actual abortion is legal. The law also seems to recognize in some states an unborn child has rights as well.

I suppose, however only about 1/2 the states have such a law on the books. It's far from universal, but your point does lend an interesting twist to the debate.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Brigandier
Just my two cents on Obama's "above my pay grade" response, I think he was referring ot the point of consciousness, which is a hotly debated point and is above the pay-grade of a majority of people.

Yeah, I thought he was talking about G-d.

This.

He is saying that it is "above his pay grade" but really should have said "above everyone's pay grade" meaning that the decision is a personal one to be made between each individual woman and her god.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Again, stop putting words in others mouth. Why don't we just read the actual statute and come to our own conclusions. It's pretty short, and here it is:

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

So lets analyze:

This bill defines any living fetus outside the womb, at any stage of development, a person.

That statement alone makes it clear why this bill is totally unacceptable to anyone who is pro-choice: If a fetus (even a one-week-old fetus) happens to survive extraction from the womb, then killing the fetus thereafter is murder. And if the fetus cannot be killed absent fear of prosecution for murder, that means it's the abortion clinic's responsibility to fight to keep the fetus alive. regardless of cost.

Thank God Obama opposes this bill. It has nothing to do with protecting babies. It has everything to do with outlawing abortion.

Oh yeah? How many 1 week old fetuses can even been recognized much less survive outside the womb in that description? Breath, heart beat? Maybe you need to reread when the heart starts to pump. It isnt in the 1st week.

It is clear this is in regards to partial birth abortions. Where babies are born in the 3rd trimester and have a real chance to live outside the womb if delivered. Now how does one survive partial birth abortion? I'd say sloppy workmanship by the doctor where the baby is fully delivered instead of just partially with the head still in the birth canal where its brains are sucked out. And it sounds like a nurse witnessed such a delivery only to let the baby die on its own. Simply ridiculous.

If a baby survives an abortion you better damn well give it basic human rights. It was born under some of the most disgusting circumstances one can think.

In-vitro-fertilized zygotes can live for days. What makes you think that an extracted early-term fetus couldn't be kept alive for hours or even days, given the right laboratory conditions? And therein lies the rub: If the fetus is alive, for however short a time, it's a "person" under the terms of this bill. Thus, the physician who performs the abortion is guilty of killing that "person" - aka "murder" - when the fetus dies a few minutes after extraction unless that physician and the facility in which the physician practices make every possible effort to keep the fetus alive. This bill would require that the entire current post-abortion protocol change on the off-chance that the fetus was living: instead of just discarding the tissue, there would have to be all sorts of required procedures, tests, and documentation to make sure there wasn't a "person" to be protected and/or to PROVE that the best possible efforts were made to keep the "person" alive.

This bill is a slimy attempt to criminalize abortion and/or make it so burdensome on practitioners and facilities that they can't afford to perform abortions. Why else define a fetus "at any stage of development" to be a "person" if it's alive outside the womb, and link that status of person-hood to "the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State"? This is clearly a set-up to make performing abortions so risky for doctors and clinics that they're forced to stop.

You can't possibly be so stupid that you don't recognize why this bill has been drafted.

Edit: Note the amazingly dishonest wording Santorum used in the attack on Obama: "Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born?" And then there was, "The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive." Santorum should be shouted down from the tops of mountains: "Liar! Liar! Liar! Liar!"

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Vic
I just want to jump in and say that this is not a medical or scientific question, but a legal one. From a medical standpoint, life begins at conception. From a scientific standpoint, life began some 3.5 billion years ago (DNA is seemingly immortal), and each individual is not new life but the propagation of life.
From a legal standpoint, interested in protecting the rights of individual life, the question is a bit more clouded. It comes down to: whose individual rights are more important? The mother's or the fetus'? This is why a person who murders a pregnant woman at the doorstep of an abortion clinic would be charged with 2 counts of murder. His rights are not at issue here. But so long as the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then the mother's rights are of issue here. So I believe that it will be legally determined that life begins at the point where the fetus is able to survive outside the mother's womb on its own.
This is why I applaud Obama in supporting the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, while simultaneously recognizing the right of a woman to choose -- up to a point.
And also why I frown upon McCain for abusing science to forward his own ideological agenda even when it trounces upon the legal rights of pregnant women. Obviously, he could spout out his response without thinking. That's because he didn't think.

I thought he voted against it?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Vic
This is why I applaud Obama in supporting the Born Alive Infants Protection Act

Vic. Read the God Damned Act (see a couple of my posts up). No one who reads it can possibly support it.

It has NOTHING to do with "viable" out-of-womb fetuses. It says that ANY live fetus - at ANY stage of development - outside the womb is a person, and says that all laws and regulations regarding "persons" will apply. It's a fraud.

 

[Stiganator]

You are officially alive when you are no longer a parasite. Simple as that. Once you can be removed from your host and survive without it, you are officially alive.

/thread

 

[Moonbeam]

I would add that McCain probably doesn't give a shit about the abortion issue one way or the other but he mouths the part of a pro lifer for the votes it will bring from the loony segment of the Republican party. Republicans will keep Roe as long as opposing it gets them votes. They will make sure it never is rescinded.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

"Nothing is above the president's pay grade"??

What are we - children who still need to believe that Daddy knows everything?

His answer: "I may have a firm opinion on the matter or merely find it perplexing and continue to struggle with it, but the point is, it's not my job to make that determination for everyone."

I think he made it clear that regardless, he's firmly pro-choice. That's a matter of policy within the President's purview. He can defer to a higher authority on the metaphysical question.

After all, the question itself is worded in a rather retarded fashion. What is at issue is not really "life" but "personhood". the whole "when does life begin" is a trick question, implicitly equating "life" with "personhood", so that once you admit a fetus is technically "alive" (even though still utterly parasitic) you will be forced to exclude legally killing it.

McCain also got it out there that "Life begins at conception", got that ladies? That means that most forms of birth control are abortion. If you don't believe me, talk to an evangelical.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It doesn't matter when a fetus becomes a person, because no person has the right to occupy the body of another person without that person's explicit consent. No person has the right to draw the entirety of his oxygen supply and nourishment from another person's bloodstream without that person's explicit consent. No person has the right to inject another person with hormones and bodily waste without that person's explicit consent.

Any and all persons have the rights to defend their body from any other person attempting to accomplish any of these violations against his body, and to seek restoration if some person were able to accomplish such violations without that person's explicit consent.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Conky
The question is at what point does human life start?

Actually, that's not the question.

The question is, when does a human life become a person?

That's a weak cop out.

If intelligent thought is the marker then a large percentage of humans walking the planet are not "persons" and never will be.

It's really pretty basic. When a fertilized chicken egg is waiting to be hatched there is no doubt there is life contained in that egg.

It's the same with human children.. they aren't suddenly "alive" the day they pop out of momma. They were alive from the point that momma's egg got fertilized.

You could definitely stomp on a chicken egg the day before it would break out of that eggshell but it's not like you didn't kill something. Same concept.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: smack Down
I'm still waiting for how life can start at conception when all conception is combining two living cells.

2 cells=a vote

Hey smarty pants, what makes your cells so effin special? Seriously.

Why can't I just abort you?

I will await your enlightened opinion. :roll:

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Life begins when the fetus can survive outside the womb and be a normal, healthy baby.

I agree with you completely.

Abortions should be allowed up until the age of 3 years old. Nobody younger than that can survive on their own. At least when they are 3 or so they can walk and tell people they are hungry.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Conky
The question is at what point does human life start?

Actually, that's not the question.

The question is, when does a human life become a person?

That's a weak cop out.

If intelligent thought is the marker then a large percentage of humans walking the planet are not "persons" and never will be.

It's really pretty basic. When a fertilized chicken egg is waiting to be hatched there is no doubt there is life contained in that egg.

It's the same with human children.. they aren't suddenly "alive" the day they pop out of momma. They were alive from the point that momma's egg got fertilized.

You could definitely stomp on a chicken egg the day before it would break out of that eggshell but it's not like you didn't kill something. Same concept.

But possessing the characteristics of being human and alive does not automatically confer to any object exhibiting those qualities the same rights as a person. Consider HeLa cell cultures or cancer cells: human, alive, and not persons. They are flushed down drains all over the world, over and over again. Where's your outrage for that wasted human life?

The point is that shira was right, and you are basically too simple-minded and ignorant.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.

No, it's actually a very simple question.

Go ask a farmer when his cow is pregnant if he expects another cow to be born. He won't argue that it isn't another cow. And if it didn't get born... he will say it was stillborn(died). He won't deny that the cow wasn't ever pregnant to begin with.

It's that effin basic. It's intellectual dishonesty to say that abortion isn't about killing babies.

What is remarkable is that modern minorities have a higher percentage of abortions... I can not for the life of me figure out why this is not a civil rights issue.

Black babies get snuffed and it's not any fairer because Obama wants it. I find the entire issue to be very sad. Pam Anderson cares about PETA and I care about unborn kids regardless of their race.
My cause is not nearly as sexy although I believe that a couple generations from now people will consider us barbarians for our casual attitude towards exterminating the tiniest and least powerful people of our time. We are the modern Nazis.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would add that McCain probably doesn't give a shit about the abortion issue one way or the other but he mouths the part of a pro lifer for the votes it will bring from the loony segment of the Republican party. Republicans will keep Roe as long as opposing it gets them votes. They will make sure it never is rescinded.

That is stupid. You'd be fighting to restore it, that's all the votes they'd need to keep the issue alive.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Conky
The question is at what point does human life start?

Actually, that's not the question.

The question is, when does a human life become a person?

That's a weak cop out.

If intelligent thought is the marker then a large percentage of humans walking the planet are not "persons" and never will be.

It's really pretty basic. When a fertilized chicken egg is waiting to be hatched there is no doubt there is life contained in that egg.

It's the same with human children.. they aren't suddenly "alive" the day they pop out of momma. They were alive from the point that momma's egg got fertilized.

You could definitely stomp on a chicken egg the day before it would break out of that eggshell but it's not like you didn't kill something. Same concept.

But possessing the characteristics of being human and alive does not automatically confer to any object exhibiting those qualities the same rights as a person. Consider HeLa cell cultures or cancer cells: human, alive, and not persons. They are flushed down drains all over the world, over and over again. Where's your outrage for that wasted human life?

The point is that shira was right, and you are basically too simple-minded and ignorant.

You are just stupid. Cancer cells equal babies? Only in your messed up view of life.

 

[Conky]

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.

Yes, the liberal view is that children are punishment.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Conky
The question is at what point does human life start?

Actually, that's not the question.

The question is, when does a human life become a person?

That's a weak cop out.

If intelligent thought is the marker then a large percentage of humans walking the planet are not "persons" and never will be.

It's really pretty basic. When a fertilized chicken egg is waiting to be hatched there is no doubt there is life contained in that egg.

It's the same with human children.. they aren't suddenly "alive" the day they pop out of momma. They were alive from the point that momma's egg got fertilized.

You could definitely stomp on a chicken egg the day before it would break out of that eggshell but it's not like you didn't kill something. Same concept.

But possessing the characteristics of being human and alive does not automatically confer to any object exhibiting those qualities the same rights as a person. Consider HeLa cell cultures or cancer cells: human, alive, and not persons. They are flushed down drains all over the world, over and over again. Where's your outrage for that wasted human life?

The point is that shira was right, and you are basically too simple-minded and ignorant.

You are just stupid. Cancer cells equal babies? Only in your messed up view of life.

I said nothing of the sort. Cancer cells are human life, however. I pointed that out as an illustration of the fact that what really matters is personhood, not the qualities of being human and alive. Nobody with any sense would dispute that a fetus is human and alive. It simply isn't a person, and persons are the objects of rights and duties in the positive law of the United States.

...but *I'm* the stupid one... uh-huh... :roll:

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Conky was gone? Did anyone notice, or care?

Obama's answer was perfectly legit, as was McCain's, despite your rather weak efforts to slant Obama as some kind of idiot, which he is far from.

Obama has made it clear that he is against abortion from an ethical standpoint - but not in favor of telling women they can't have them if they so desire. Despite the blabbering of the right - this is pretty much the majority opinion on abortion of Democrats.

Is a gay marriage thread next Conky?
Gays in the military?
How about Obama's take on the teletubbies?

Obama is a raving idiot. If Bush had said half the stupid shit this guy said they would never let him live it down.

57 states. Says it all. http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=xZ8ykt1Ry5M

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Conky

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.

Yes, the liberal view is that children are punishment.

Quite the contrary. It is the anti-choice camp that regularly describes a pregnancy as a woman's "comeuppance" for choosing to engage in sex in the first place.

"If she didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex." It serves her right! That's what she gets, the harlot!

Sorry, but you're hanging yourself with that one.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Conky

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.

Yes, the liberal view is that children are punishment.

Quite the contrary. It is the anti-choice camp that regularly describes a pregnancy as a woman's "comeuppance" for choosing to engage in sex in the first place.

"If she didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex." It serves her right! That's what she gets, the harlot!

Sorry, but you're hanging yourself with that one.

You've already shown your ass when trying to equate children to disposed cancer tissue.

I will not respond to any of your further inane attempts to draw me into non-intellectual flame discussions.

I realize this is a very sensitive topic but there is no reason people can't discuss this stuff honestly and openly.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Conky

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.

Yes, the liberal view is that children are punishment.

Quite the contrary. It is the anti-choice camp that regularly describes a pregnancy as a woman's "comeuppance" for choosing to engage in sex in the first place.

"If she didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex." It serves her right! That's what she gets, the harlot!

Sorry, but you're hanging yourself with that one.

You've already shown your ass when trying to equate children to disposed cancer tissue.

It is clear to anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size that I made no such comparison.

I will not respond to any of your further inane attempts to draw me into non-intellectual flame discussions.

In other words, you realize that you cannot refute the facts described by me, and so will choose not to engage them under the guise that I hurt your fragile little feelings. Awww.

I realize this is a very sensitive topic but there is no reason people can't discuss this stuff honestly and openly.

...says the person who has twice misrepresented my position.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Conky
I will not respond to any of your further inane attempts to draw me into non-intellectual flame discussions.

Oh teh irony!

Pal, all you've done this whole thread is try to draw posters into non-intellectual flame discussions.

Take your big government-will-control-everyone's-body authoritarian bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Yaknow what ticks me off about you spoon-fed talking point spouting wingnut morons? That in all your empty words about loving freedom, and all your "the future emperor ObamaMessiah" idiocy, you can't ever seem to realize that YOU are the big government authoritarians. Seriously. And now even after 8 years of corrupt abuse of power to prove it, you still deny it. It's simply disgusting.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Conky
I will not respond to any of your further inane attempts to draw me into non-intellectual flame discussions.

Oh teh irony!

Pal, all you've done this whole thread is try to draw posters into non-intellectual flame discussions.

Take your big government-will-control-everyone's-body authoritarian bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Yaknow what ticks me off about you spoon-fed talking point spouting wingnut morons? That in all your empty words about loving freedom, and all your "the future emperor ObamaMessiah" idiocy, you can't ever seem to realize that YOU are the big government authoritarians. Seriously. And now even after 8 years of corrupt abuse of power to prove it, you still deny it. It's simply disgusting.

I'm spoonfed because I don't think the government should control every aspect of my life literally from cradle to grave? I'm glad you have so much confidence in placing the control of every aspect of your life to people that couldn't get a job in corporate USA if their lives depended on it.

Here's a tip for you... McCain was never and will never be considered a conservative no matter how much the moveon.org people try and push that stupid "McSame" nonsense down other non-thinking assholes throats.

You think Obama is some kind of answer. What the hell is the change he is offering besides wind-powered and solar-powered cars? You think I'm being funny but seriously... wtf is this guy offering other than unspecified bullshit? And why does unspecified bullshit appeal to you so much? Please tell me, I am desperate to understand why people are so hot to believe in absolutely nothing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Conky
I'm spoonfed because I don't think the government should control every aspect of my life literally from cradle to grave? I'm glad you have so much confidence in placing the control of every aspect of your life to people that couldn't get a job in corporate USA if their lives depended on it.

Really?... which is why you're rabidly anti-abortion, right? Because you don't want govt controlling every aspect of your life, just someone else's life? Your words and your actions do not line up. Like I said, 'spoonfed.' Because you don't even realize your own hypocrisy.
Shall we bring up other big government issues? Maybe the Patriot Act, Drug War, Bush's Medicare Act, etc etc. I'm willing to bet Paypal that we'll find out that you're anything but a small govt libertarian in no time flat.

Here's a tip for you... McCain was never and will never be considered a conservative no matter how much the moveon.org people try and push that stupid "McSame" nonsense down other non-thinking assholes throats.

Where did I say "McSame?" Oh, I didn't. So, as with most of your other replies in this thread, you must have just pulled that right out of your ass.
However, that the Republicans are running (yet again) such a known corrupt authoritarian non-conservative for President, however, is telling in just how far it has strayed from the conservative ideal. That wouldn't bother me, except that the party faithful are still going to vote for him. Actions speak louder than words.

You think Obama is some kind of answer. What the hell is the change he is offering besides wind-powered and solar-powered cars? You think I'm being funny but seriously... wtf is this guy offering other than unspecified bullshit? And why does unspecified bullshit appeal to you so much? Please tell me, I am desperate to understand why people are so hot to believe in absolutely nothing.

And where did I say that Obama is 'some kind of answer?' It's no wonder you can't understand something that isn't true. It's amazing how the spoonfed can't figure that the whole 'ObamaMessiah' crap is just mudslinging from supporters of the McCain campaign. And here you just chastised me for "that stupid' McSame' nonsense" that I've never even said. WTG dude.

But if you must know, the change Obama is offering is that he is not yet another corrupt Republican warmonger who wins elections by being 'Moses' to non-thinking religious zealots with a moral authoritarian agenda. And after 8 years of that nonsense, and 4 more explicitly threatened by McCain despite the pressing need of a sagging economy, is this really that confusing?
Do you really believe that, this time around, you're going to be able to convince people that abortion and teh gays are America's top political priorities while Americans are losing their jobs and their homes? Or that the most important item for American tax dollars to be spent on is some seemingly endless war against a country that never attacked us, while the terrorists who did attack us have nearly completed their take-over of a country that has nukes, Pakistan?

Sorry, I have more faith in the American people than that.