zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,856
- 31,346
- 146
you went from "life" to "humanity."
My entire point is that humanity occurs well after birth, in response to your proposing a logical argument defining abortion as murder, if it can be argued that humanity precedes life.
so I was talking about humanity, as per your request. Look, I went up there and underlined and bolded your comment. So, I stopped talking about life, as I was under the impression that you were off that.
Would you like to back to talking about the definition of life, again? we can do that.
I think that your abortion = murder argument as dependent on a definition of humanity is done, so it would make sense now that you want to back to defining life?
Help me out here....
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Your conclusion avoids the issue.
Unborn should have equal rights with living persons.
When an unborn threatens the mother's life, she should have the right to terminate.
Such a termination is necessary and therefore not murder.
You avoid the crucial question: when the pregnancy threatens her life, why is the mother's life more important than the baby? Why do we not force the woman to carry to term if the baby's life is equal to hers? After all we don't know that the baby will kill the mother. Seems a bit precipitous to "murder" someone because you think they "might" present a threat to someone else.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Okay.
Unborns do have rights, the same that adults do. If we know (as far as we can know) that a birth will kill the mother, then someone has to die. We're not making the choice to kill. Nature dictated it.
I don't say the mother has more rights than the baby. I simply say that, whomever of the two we choose, someone had to die. If the doctors choose to save the mother at the expense of the baby's life, I don't condemn them because they had to choose.
There are rarely any certainties, nor can we be certain that the mother would die as a result of childbirth. But I trust a doctor if he tells me my wife will die in childbirth. Sure, he may be wrong, but I'd trust him nonetheless. He certainly knows better than I. I want a doctor to act on his professional opinion, not on what he fears he doesn't know. If indeed my baby dies, and my wife survives, I live in the knowledge that my wife might've survived the childbirth, but we made the most prudent choice with the knowledge we had. God can ask no more of us.
I think my initial analogy applies to this. The justice system excuses killing on basis of self-defense. The judge doesn't ask, "Are you certain he would've killed you?" When your hand is forced, you are excused from liability.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I think the answer is rather obvious.
Such a mother often has other children, it is in the best interests of a family that the mother survive.
While we now have the means to raise such an orphan (in the case the mother's life was forfeit), it has not always been that way. Therefor, where is the logic in letting the mother die so that an orphaned infant may live, only to die soon thereafter?
Fern
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,736
- 10,043
- 136
Nice selective use of abortion there. Who doesn't agree with her being able to abort if her life is at stake, or if she was raped? The real problem is the frivolous use of abortion as nothing more than birth control for the sake of not wanting to use a condom.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
If they have equal rights, why does the baby die instead of the mother? Why not the other way around where the baby gets the right to live and the mother must die? Why do over 90% of people, including you, feel that in these situations the mother has the right to continue to live while the baby must die?
What I'm trying to get at is doesn't the reaction to this situation illustrate that almost everyone is willing to agree that ultimately the life of a woman is superior to that of an unborn child? That she's worth more? Maybe because she's a thinking adult with experiences, feelings, and other intangibles that make her life worth saving over that of a yet to be born fetus?
if you aren't willing to go back and read the discussion atreus and I have been having then please butt out, eh? you'll see your comment has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
But to answer your question, about 10% of people are opposed to abortions even to save the mother. Which is at least consistent with their belief that abortion is murder.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
This also avoids the issue. If a baby is a human with full rights, then whether or not it receives a death sentence should have nothing to do with the best interests of the mother's family members. If I was a baby I wouldn't give a fuck what my mother's other children needed. I want to live and it's my right to exist!
I'm ultimately trying to get at the contradiction of pro-lifers who propose giving full rights to a fetus, yet still allowing for abortion in cases where the mothers life is in danger, or rape/incest cases. If it's a full person, circumstances surrounding it's conception, especially rape/incest, should have absolutely no bearing on the fate of the fetus.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
For the most part I agree.
Once you've established that the mother will die, then you may start to consider intangibles such as the mother's value to society (as is the case if she has other kids to nurture like Fern said) and establish that, given either the mother or her child MUST die because of circumstances outside our control, killing the mother would have worse societal and familial effects than killing the child, and therefore for her family's sake we must abort the child so as to save the mother's life.
Now, let me make this quite clear: Intangibles such as these are ONLY to be considered in the event that the mother isn't expected to survive the childbirth. This is the one and only exception to my stance that abortion is murder. If the mother's life isn't endangered, then under no circumstances is the child to be killed.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
I understand your position. I guess my position is that your position when pushed to the extreme, where it's death for one or the other, admits that the mother should be allowed to live, and that such a position tacitly admits that the mother's life is more important.
Once you establish that these two lives are not equal, you have a beloved patriot in the "baby is a full human" armor. I can also see how someone would feel that this is the only situation where abortion "should" be allowed, but once you allow even that, what you are talking about with regard to rape or incest or even mother's convenience, abortion becomes a matter of personal preference and not human rights.
Btw, this is probably among the most civil discussions I've seen on here regarding this topic (or any other topic) so pats on the back to both of us. You anti-woman fascist you!
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Thanks.
I don't think my one exception provides a wedge with which to jeapordize the entire premise. I don't think abortion is permissable in the case of rape or incest, bloodthirsty and horrible as that sounds.
For me, it's a horrible and terrible situation. But in the end, the woman has to ask herself, "Who is to blame" and hence, "Who deserves punishment?"
She is certainly not to blame. But the baby isn't either. The baby is there by no choice of its own. The fault lies squarely with the rapist, and no other. Only he deserves punishment. By whatever machination, the mother has to choose, and that baby is her child.
As a disclaimer, I have to admit however that if a woman aborted a child conceived in rape, I don't think I'd stick a "Murderer!" sign in her face. Even I might relent. There's a world of difference between a woman like that, and a woman who aborts after consensual sex for frivolous reasons. Being a catholic, I would say she did sin, but I think God would be much quicker to forgive her than the other. (And certainly, I might commit the same sin in her shoes.)
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,856
- 31,346
- 146
Here's the nice, concise article I was looking for.
really cool DevBio article
Take some to digest it. Here, you have a historical perspective on the philosophical, religious, and scientific viewpoints on the definition of life. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church, as they have done with many issues throughout history, has consistently refined their definition of this issue over the centuries. This happens in science, of course, as we gain better understanding based on evidence and facts. It seems to me that the Catholic Church has revised their viewpoints more to support their current political stance on certain issues, perhaps by using a "more informed interpretation" of a 4,000 year-old text. Honestly, I've enver been sure how that passes as evidence.
Here's a summary of the various scientific viewpoints as detailed at length in the article:
What this shows, more than anything, is that Pro-Lifers can't really argue that "Science is clear in defining life as ____"
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, yet they continue to recycle the same tripe. Honestly, I've never thought it "fair" that a group of people incapable of understanding the language and information from one discourse community (the scientific community) is allowed to use that same language and information, then misshape and misuse that information to suit their own moro-politico agendas.
One thing that we all hold, not just within the scientific community but also among everyone outside who depends on progress and development, is that the information produced within science is rigorously investigated and vetted by those who are most capable of vetting. This is absolutely true of how science works. Oddly, it seems that those outside of the multiple fields of "Science" fully support this process, as we all rely on, and indeed reference current advances to mark humanity's progress, and even to reference these findings as support for our various viewpoints on reality, and well, opinions regarding morality. No one would do this (cite scientific research as a valid support for their opinions/viewpoints/certain concepts) if they didn't believe in (and certainly respect) the scientific method and it's rigorous vetting process. Now...this is the problem: Why do certain interest groups, (example: pro-life, anti-evolutionists, anti-stem cell, etc), put so much effort into culling scientific research in search of evidence for their opinions? Surely, they respect the method, and the "weight" that Science has on our modern society, no? Interestingly, all of their arguments seem to rely on finding scientific evidence, as they must respect it, yet.....in every single case, it is shown they these interest groups of consistently misused and abused (intentionally or otherwise) the very research that they cite: making their own interpretations, simply not understanding what certain data means, or blatantly ignoring the evidence that clearly disagrees with their view, in favor of isolated sentences within papers that vaguely suggest that they may be correct, but only when cited far out of context--as it always is.
I feel that this type of activity is criminal, and it is a serious issue for me. Everyone sees what happens to scientists within the community when they have been shown to have falsified their data. Remember the previously, highly-respected Korean Investigator who had cloned cats? Afterwards, he published a supposedly landmark paper claiming to have developed a process creating near-fully-functioning embryonic stem cells from fibroblasts (skin cells). Landmark work, and this was major household news. Then, well....it appears that his research was unrepeatable, and his data was intentionally fudged. This was an eventual Nobel Laureate, now an outcast without funding, and absolutely no respect within his previous community. Done. That's it. (Now he makes money in Industry cloning little cats for people...at some $5k per kitty, I believe. Rather than becoming the next Pasteur or Salk, he's now making Furbies off an assembly line)
If only the far-right had THIS kind of vetting for their authorities. Let's see...Scores of Homophobic evangelical pastors outed by their homosexual prostitutes for their meth-smoking, homo-erotic lifestyles. These are the "good, wholesome, family men of our country." They tell us what God thinks of us, and how we should honor him, etc. What happens when their hypocrisy comes back to haunt them? They go away to Christian camp, to °"cure" themselves of their homoerotic habits. Of course they aren't gay, but they have succumbed to weakness. Certainly, it would do no service to their income and lifestyle if they were to actually become examples of progress, and recognize that homosexuals are real, have always been a part of life, and always will be. And that they are one of them. Buuuuut no. They seek "forgiveness" for their evil ways, and their followers are happy to give it--b/c that's what good Christians do. There is no outing in this community of former authority figures. When their hypocrisy is exposed, they hide out for a bit, "re-educate" themselves, and lose no respect from their community. I find this to be an embarrassingly stark contrast in how this same community to look at previous pillars of authority in such a lite, and ignore the blatantly obvious issues that are confronting them. It kind of explains how they feel that it is appropriate to go into other communities (science), and make up their own rules about how they interpret the languages and habits of any kind of outside authority. They do it all the time...so why should it be a surprise?
Well, when Health care, human progress, and technology are left in the hands of a group that can make up their own rules, and support authority figures that regularly lie, intentionally deceive, (for profit, of course) and do so quite publicly and at-will, then we're in a world of shit. In light of this, it's certainly a great thing that we have the scientific method and the rigid vetting process (in which formerly well-respected authorities become instant un-funded outcasts when deception is exposed). Having actual human and historical progress determined by a community with the habits and structure of the "moral" right would clearly be a disaster for humanity.
I go on about this, because it is a serious issue. It's not that I see it as serious, but that it is a serious issue. Here are a few examples of exterior discourse communities invading scientific community to cull, and criminally misrepresent, and MISUSE valid research in order to push public policy that supports their unfounded agenda, (Again, the crime here is using your chief source of evidence for one viewpoint in a duplicitous manner. This is far from acceptable)
The infamous and blatantly duplicitous "73 Cures for adult stem cells" list, propagated by a christian, right wing interest group.
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
Every single article used in this list, and advertised as "proof" of adult Stem Cell "cures," when in fact, none of the actual articles advocate adult stem cells as cures, but as treatments for the side effects of medical procedures described in the research cited. In fact, each article includes a statement that clarifies that the research suggests that a better approach, and the next step, would be to investigate ES cells as an actual "cure" option.
The group that misused this research was roundly called-out by the Journal Science, and every author of every cited research article. Rather damning, except that the authorities in this interest group can do no wrong, right? If the authorities don't understand the research, how could they laypeople? Why shouldn't they trust their leaders to feed them factual information? Pretty bad, no? Here i sone of the Scientific Community's rebuttals of Prentice, et al.'s erroneous claims regarding Adult vs Embryonic stem cell research: (there is a larger letter in which all of the cited investigators contribute their signatures, but I have been unable to find it)
http://stemcellcommunity.org/metadot/index.pl?id=2850
Oh. and here are several resources, many from scientists, who have had their data edited and suppressed by Bush and Co.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...1/usnews.frontpagenews
http://www.ens-newswire.com/en...2007/2007-02-07-10.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...04A.xml&show_article=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03...ton/08polar.html?fta=y
Oh, here's that Bush aide who helped to doctor the climatology reports. It seems that he was later hired by Exxon. Neato
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...icas/article533755.ece
The danger, of course, is that so many will swallow this tripe without any self-reflection as they operate within a community structure of duplicitous authority figures, with a "forgive and forget" attitude towards deception, rather than one that discredits and exiles those that mislead them
really cool DevBio article
Take some to digest it. Here, you have a historical perspective on the philosophical, religious, and scientific viewpoints on the definition of life. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church, as they have done with many issues throughout history, has consistently refined their definition of this issue over the centuries. This happens in science, of course, as we gain better understanding based on evidence and facts. It seems to me that the Catholic Church has revised their viewpoints more to support their current political stance on certain issues, perhaps by using a "more informed interpretation" of a 4,000 year-old text. Honestly, I've enver been sure how that passes as evidence.
Here's a summary of the various scientific viewpoints as detailed at length in the article:
What this shows, more than anything, is that Pro-Lifers can't really argue that "Science is clear in defining life as ____"
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, yet they continue to recycle the same tripe. Honestly, I've never thought it "fair" that a group of people incapable of understanding the language and information from one discourse community (the scientific community) is allowed to use that same language and information, then misshape and misuse that information to suit their own moro-politico agendas.
One thing that we all hold, not just within the scientific community but also among everyone outside who depends on progress and development, is that the information produced within science is rigorously investigated and vetted by those who are most capable of vetting. This is absolutely true of how science works. Oddly, it seems that those outside of the multiple fields of "Science" fully support this process, as we all rely on, and indeed reference current advances to mark humanity's progress, and even to reference these findings as support for our various viewpoints on reality, and well, opinions regarding morality. No one would do this (cite scientific research as a valid support for their opinions/viewpoints/certain concepts) if they didn't believe in (and certainly respect) the scientific method and it's rigorous vetting process. Now...this is the problem: Why do certain interest groups, (example: pro-life, anti-evolutionists, anti-stem cell, etc), put so much effort into culling scientific research in search of evidence for their opinions? Surely, they respect the method, and the "weight" that Science has on our modern society, no? Interestingly, all of their arguments seem to rely on finding scientific evidence, as they must respect it, yet.....in every single case, it is shown they these interest groups of consistently misused and abused (intentionally or otherwise) the very research that they cite: making their own interpretations, simply not understanding what certain data means, or blatantly ignoring the evidence that clearly disagrees with their view, in favor of isolated sentences within papers that vaguely suggest that they may be correct, but only when cited far out of context--as it always is.
I feel that this type of activity is criminal, and it is a serious issue for me. Everyone sees what happens to scientists within the community when they have been shown to have falsified their data. Remember the previously, highly-respected Korean Investigator who had cloned cats? Afterwards, he published a supposedly landmark paper claiming to have developed a process creating near-fully-functioning embryonic stem cells from fibroblasts (skin cells). Landmark work, and this was major household news. Then, well....it appears that his research was unrepeatable, and his data was intentionally fudged. This was an eventual Nobel Laureate, now an outcast without funding, and absolutely no respect within his previous community. Done. That's it. (Now he makes money in Industry cloning little cats for people...at some $5k per kitty, I believe. Rather than becoming the next Pasteur or Salk, he's now making Furbies off an assembly line)
If only the far-right had THIS kind of vetting for their authorities. Let's see...Scores of Homophobic evangelical pastors outed by their homosexual prostitutes for their meth-smoking, homo-erotic lifestyles. These are the "good, wholesome, family men of our country." They tell us what God thinks of us, and how we should honor him, etc. What happens when their hypocrisy comes back to haunt them? They go away to Christian camp, to °"cure" themselves of their homoerotic habits. Of course they aren't gay, but they have succumbed to weakness. Certainly, it would do no service to their income and lifestyle if they were to actually become examples of progress, and recognize that homosexuals are real, have always been a part of life, and always will be. And that they are one of them. Buuuuut no. They seek "forgiveness" for their evil ways, and their followers are happy to give it--b/c that's what good Christians do. There is no outing in this community of former authority figures. When their hypocrisy is exposed, they hide out for a bit, "re-educate" themselves, and lose no respect from their community. I find this to be an embarrassingly stark contrast in how this same community to look at previous pillars of authority in such a lite, and ignore the blatantly obvious issues that are confronting them. It kind of explains how they feel that it is appropriate to go into other communities (science), and make up their own rules about how they interpret the languages and habits of any kind of outside authority. They do it all the time...so why should it be a surprise?
Well, when Health care, human progress, and technology are left in the hands of a group that can make up their own rules, and support authority figures that regularly lie, intentionally deceive, (for profit, of course) and do so quite publicly and at-will, then we're in a world of shit. In light of this, it's certainly a great thing that we have the scientific method and the rigid vetting process (in which formerly well-respected authorities become instant un-funded outcasts when deception is exposed). Having actual human and historical progress determined by a community with the habits and structure of the "moral" right would clearly be a disaster for humanity.
I go on about this, because it is a serious issue. It's not that I see it as serious, but that it is a serious issue. Here are a few examples of exterior discourse communities invading scientific community to cull, and criminally misrepresent, and MISUSE valid research in order to push public policy that supports their unfounded agenda, (Again, the crime here is using your chief source of evidence for one viewpoint in a duplicitous manner. This is far from acceptable)
The infamous and blatantly duplicitous "73 Cures for adult stem cells" list, propagated by a christian, right wing interest group.
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
Every single article used in this list, and advertised as "proof" of adult Stem Cell "cures," when in fact, none of the actual articles advocate adult stem cells as cures, but as treatments for the side effects of medical procedures described in the research cited. In fact, each article includes a statement that clarifies that the research suggests that a better approach, and the next step, would be to investigate ES cells as an actual "cure" option.
The group that misused this research was roundly called-out by the Journal Science, and every author of every cited research article. Rather damning, except that the authorities in this interest group can do no wrong, right? If the authorities don't understand the research, how could they laypeople? Why shouldn't they trust their leaders to feed them factual information? Pretty bad, no? Here i sone of the Scientific Community's rebuttals of Prentice, et al.'s erroneous claims regarding Adult vs Embryonic stem cell research: (there is a larger letter in which all of the cited investigators contribute their signatures, but I have been unable to find it)
http://stemcellcommunity.org/metadot/index.pl?id=2850
Oh. and here are several resources, many from scientists, who have had their data edited and suppressed by Bush and Co.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...1/usnews.frontpagenews
http://www.ens-newswire.com/en...2007/2007-02-07-10.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...04A.xml&show_article=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03...ton/08polar.html?fta=y
Oh, here's that Bush aide who helped to doctor the climatology reports. It seems that he was later hired by Exxon. Neato
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...icas/article533755.ece
The danger, of course, is that so many will swallow this tripe without any self-reflection as they operate within a community structure of duplicitous authority figures, with a "forgive and forget" attitude towards deception, rather than one that discredits and exiles those that mislead them
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
It does not avoid the issue.
Traditionally, AFAIK, abortion has always been OK'd when the mother's life was at issue.
Moreover, I think the senario where the mother's life is at issue means that the mother dies BEFORE birth. That means the baby wasn't going to be born anyway. What is the point of 2 dead people, when you can have one still living?
If you argue that the mother should die because maybe the baby may live your question can be turned around. "Why is the baby's life more important than the mother's"?
Also seems you are speaking of a narrowly defined situation where you can get one or the other out alive, but not both. In such cases I have heard about, often it is the baby that lives and the that mother dies. I think many of us have heard of women dying during childbirth.
When you have a chioce between one or the other remaining alive (but not both), how does one choose? IDK that any one way of choosing is more moral than another. Nor do I see what it has to do with the pro-life issue.
That's a much tougher call, I can't argue with that. Personally, I see no reason to punish a child because (s)he came about by rape, a crime comitted by another person.
Fern
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,856
- 31,346
- 146
Exactly.
This is why hamsters, mice...any kind of rodent will regularly eat their babies. When faced with conditions that threaten the survival of her pups, the mother will wisely reclaim that lost energy (birth is an extremely energy-intensive process), to hopefully give birth at a later date, with greater success. It's an essential rule of survival. (by the way--I'm no PETA terrorist that equates the life of a human with that of an ant or a mouse. Don't even try to go that route
)Fertility clinics. It's impossible to argue that the advent of fertility clinics has not produced more human life than would have been otherwise possible without them: Mothers who would have never been able to conceive, now have that option. Yet, fertility clinics destroy embryos every day, so, fertilized, developing (yet frozen) human cells are indeed destroyed on a regular basis.
For those that are pro-life, fertility clinics should be a good thing. Even with the destruction of embryos, more life is actually created than otherwise would be created. It's a simple fact of numbers, and logic. Yet, the same pro-lifers (many of them, like Bush, absolutely support fertility clinics), do not advocate the use of those destroyed embryos for harvesting ES cells.
Why? They will be thrown out, destroyed, completely useless. That's a FACT, and no getting around it (I've worked in the industry, so don't try to feed me any uninformed BS about what "really" goes on...). Yet, rather than utilize them for the benefit of all of humanity, why is it preferable to the Pro-Lifers that they simply be destroyed?
Atreus, you have strong convictions, it seems, and base your support on people who hold a logical, and clear stance on a certain issue. That's great, of course, and I'm not saying that you're in this camp....but my question is, using that logic to frame an opinion about a particular candidate, is it logical to support someone who both advocates fertility clinics and concurrently seeks to ban the development of ES cell research?
I find this to be a fundamental logical flaw. Both create more life, and seek to strengthen the quality of life of all humanity. Yet, why would someone seek to ban one process that fundamentally supports what they claim to be their "core moral values?" Are they simply ignorant of the reality of the industry? Do they believe their duplicitous authority figures? Why do they meddle in an issue that they clearly don't understand, when it is one that affects so many people? Shouldn't they choose to actually inform themselves about this stuff before they blindly take their stance? Do they know how to properly inform themselves?
Of course, I've met people that are against fertility clinics b/c they are against this necessary destruction of fertilized embryos. This is, of course, the only logical stance for someone who is against the use of stem cells....but you don't see it that often.
I wonder why the majority of Pro-lifers/ES cell opponents also support fertility clinics. I don't know many of them, so if you are one, or at least know some of them, perhaps you can try to explain the mental processes that are needed to formulate and support such self-antagonizing aspects of the same issue.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
No, quite simply you are wrong. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. You need to educate yourself about what constituted explicit consent.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
No, we're searching for the beginning of personhood. Not everything that is human is a person, and it is persons that are the objects of rights and duties in the positive law of the United States.
Wrong. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being (i.e. person) with malice aforethought. It's human-ness is insufficient to qualify it for rights under the law. HeLa cell cultures, tissue samples, cancer cells... all examples of things human and alive which people regularly kill and face no legal retribution.
Of course it doesn't begin at conception. The sperm and egg are already human. The zygote is still human. At no point in the human reproductive process does anything become non-human.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
It may a tough call because of the situation the mother has just gone through, but sympathy for the mother's plight cannot possibly justify "murder". Yet 80% of people support abortion in this circumstance. This seems to recognize the general understanding held by 4 out of 5 people that a fetus is not a being endowed with the rights of a full person. Otherwise there is no excuse for abortion in this situation. Sympathy for the mother is easily outweighed by the right of the fetus to live.
I'm trying to focus on the larger issue of human rights being applied to the unborn. If abortion is (even distastefully) endorsed as a choice for mothers when rape/incest is the cause of the pregnancy, there is an acknowledgment being made that the fetus is not a person with full human rights. Though it can be rationalized as "difficult" or "disturbing" for a mother to carry such a baby to term, it cannot be reconciled with a claim of human rights granted at conception.
I understand how someone who generally opposes abortion but accepts it as an option in cases of rape/incest comes to such a position. Such a person feels that the mother is not pregnant by her choice, and bearing a rapists' baby is a burden she should not have to bear. But this position can only logically be held by someone who feels abortion is a distasteful act that should only be used in extreme circumstances, but it is an inconsistent position for someone who feels that fetuses are full persons with an inalienable right to life from the moment of conception forward.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,856
- 31,346
- 146
I must say, you guys have been quite civil and have put up a good discussion. (Try as I might, I never can reign it in. Though, I re-read my own comments and I realize that the majority of my un-edited posts are far more antagonistic than I intend)
anyhoo, your post brings up an interesting issue which will soon be a very un-PC topic in the next few years....
more and more research is coming out linking Criminality to an isolated "Criminal gene," which is also a gene linked to aggression and restraint.
here is a summary, though dated (3 years old in Genetics is often considered to be "dated"). http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html
There is more recent data, but I haven't found it yet.
of course, this brings up some rather serious ethical issues, summarized here:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.or...ontent/full/160/6/1202
I think most of us can see where this research can lead, and it ain't pretty.
In the case of choosing abortion after rape (oftentimes, spontaneous abortions occur after rape...so it is a way of nature selecting against an unfavorable birth), it seems logical to infer that such an abortion would prevent the introduction of a potential criminal. (before I go further, it's important to stress that genes themselves are NOT hard-wired fate. Just because someone may have a so-called "criminal gene," it does not mean that they would become a criminal. The same is true with those genes linked to specific cancers. Genetics deals with increased probability. Nature and lifestyle choices have a major influence on our genetic being)
Of course....this presents a serious dilemma. It seems logical to support the abortion on such grounds, though we would be edging further towards resurrecting the dark days of eugenics. Indeed, it would be dangerous to allow courts to legislate abortion based on genetic research, no more than it would be to allow insurance companies to shape individual health policies based on genetic testing. Simply, this is BAD SCIENCE.
It seems to me that over the next couple of decades, the concept abortion will not only be a dead issue (as it will be fully accepted), but it will be the legislation of specific types of abortion, based on genetic issues, that will hold court.
In this situation, we have a majority on either side of the fence that can currently argue that it is acceptable for a woman to choose abortion after rape, or under even more extreme circumstances. What happens when throw on top of that acceptance the concept that these specific cases of abortion may also be "beneficial abortions" to society?
Honestly....I don't even want to think about it, because I really don't know how to frame the proper position at this time. I guess what I'm saying is that voting for the type of authorities who have a history of supporting pseudo science, or at least really have no concern for properly vetting the sources of their belief systems leads us down a slope of politically supported bad science.
Fundamentally, this is why I rarely vote Republican, as they have a rather solid history of "fearing" science, and only supporting the fringe, un-vetted sources that only vaguely support their policies.
Kanalua
Diamond Member
- Jun 14, 2001
- 4,860
- 2
- 81
In law school I would always raise the point that the Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood holding, the survival outside the womb test, is a very weak test. this test is based on science in one aspect, but ignores science in another (when does life begin). This test will be a sliding test, and one day will be ineffective as science creates a way to keep zygote/fetuses alive outside the womb.
By the way...Obama has historically rejected and opposed this standard, what many call Obama's infanticide issues. While a Illinois State Senator he rejected State "born-alive" bills that would have made it illegal in the state to murder babies who showed signs of life after or during an abortion: "capable of breathing or voluntary motion, or if it had a heartbeat"
Obama claims the Bills had no protection for certain mother situations he wanted protections for. When versions of the Bill came forward with those exact protections Obama rejected even those versions...
Obama, as his record shows, if for the murder of babies (yes, babies, not "fetuses") who are alive, who breath and have a heartbeat, OUTSIDE the womb...
Text
What in the world makes you think that's the argument here? Because some political hack with a vested interest in convincing you of something told you so? For God's sake, think for yourself once in a while. Bills are complex pieces of legislature that often contain dozens of different aspects, any one of which a reasonable person might use as a reason to reject the bill even if they don't disagree with ALL of the bill. Trying to spin this as "Obama votes to have a living baby killed" is stupid, but not as stupid as you buying the argument.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter