Social Conservatives: Just a few questions

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I think it would be ok to abort a fetus at any time prior to birth. The termination of 1-2 month old babies should be classified as infanticide, not murder. I question whether a significant legal penalty should be attached to the act of infanticide

Thankfully, 99.999% of society vehemently disagrees with you there.

Originally posted by: Stunt
Yes i agree you answered my original question semi effectively, i find it interesting however that most religious people are very compassionate, ie. helping fellow man, donating money to good causes, and having a social safety net, these are all derived from principles that the bible preaches.
Giving up on all those values for a potential judiciary position seems out there for me, but then again, you are conservative, so you don't care about the above values.

:roll: Yes, I really don't care about helping others, donating money to good causes, and so on. This is why I volunteer to take food from local pantries to those without and give money when I can. I'm a grad student, not Bill Gates, which is why we still have people living on the streets. These principles can be readily embraced by all people - reliance on the Bible is not required, as helping other people is a generally ethical thing to do. You paint me as a conservative, but I'm not the color of conservative you selected. I fully understand the merits of both private and government 'charity' or welfare and see the utility of both. I don't think we would do nearly as well if we got rid of either, which is why I consider myself slightly fiscally liberal. Remember, this thread is about social conservatism, not fiscal, which is why I placed myself on that side of the line.

I do think birth control would help, say ever woman had access to the pill, practically free, and men had access to a male version of the pill...it's coming out soon, AND condoms were distributed. There would be not margin of error, you have a condom that breaks 1 in a 1000 times if used right, you've got each pill effective 99.995 percent of the time. This WILL drastically reduce abortions, i dont think you can deny this unless useing the arguement that ppl should have sex. This is usually what social conservatives advocate at the same time...abstinance.

Anyways, those are my points, thanks for the response though, you have an interesting point of view. Hardly practical (i'm assuming, since you have not addressed the alternate illegal modes of abortion: i.e women are not going to ahve a kid they dont want...garanteed)....but good for discussion

You're arguing basically for mandatory sterilization outside of marriage as a means for eliminating abortion. Why not simply outlaw abortion? Why do you insist on allowing it at the expense of all else? You're essentially seeking to mitigate any responsibility inherent to the sex act by throwing up every artificial barrier to nature that you can think of, which I cannot agree with, but that's beyond the scope of this conversation for me at this point.

I'm not impressed by your dismissal of my views as impractical. People will always break the law, but the law must exist regardless, even if only to dissuade a small fraction of potential perpetrators. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that outlawing abortion would drastically decrease the abortion rate. If you don't believe me, simply reference abortion rates before and after Roe v Wade, as this is the exact same situation in reverse.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
Everything depends on when it changed form being human cells to "a person".

Thus, a valid distinction must be made between the two to deny the human rights that are granted to the person. Can you make such a distinction?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, isn't the question 'What criteria have to be met before you can demand slavery from another?' Every woman constitutionally has ownership of her body. You want to take that away. It is you who should provide 'criteria', not me.

Untrue. The woman cannot consume illegal drugs, remove organs voluntarily, or attempt suicide. Clearly, then, there is no absolute right to her own body, nor have you demonstrated that a fetus is a part of her body.

Actually, one is free to donate one's organs. For example you can donate a kidney, or a sliver of your liver, to a relative who is in need of a transplant. In fact you can donate a kidney or other organs to a complete stranger. Currently, however, there is a ban on the sale of organs for profit. There is a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of illegal drugs. However is there a ban on the actual consumption of such drugs?? Or a ban on the presence of such drugs in the blood strema?? I'm not so sure. Can someone be fined on the basis of a blood test for drugs? I'd say the default assumption is that we have a right to control what happens to or with our bodies (in terms of medical procedures we consent to, what we consume, etc.) and that there are a small number of laws that appear to violate that right.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Actually, one is free to donate one's organs. For example you can donate a kidney, or a sliver of your liver, to a relative who is in need of a transplant. In fact you can donate a kidney or other organs to a complete stranger. Currently, however, there is a ban on the sale of organs for profit. There is a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of illegal drugs. However is there a ban on the actual consumption of such drugs?? Or a ban on the presence of such drugs in the blood strema?? I'm not so sure. Can someone be fined on the basis of a blood test for drugs? I'd say the default assumption is that we have a right to control what happens to or with our bodies (in terms of medical procedures we consent to, what we consume, etc.) and that there are a small number of laws that appear to violate that right.

One is free to donate organs when there is a willing and needy recipient. One cannot simply remove organs on a whim. If you were to go to the hospital and offer to pay for a surgery to remove your kidney and have it thrown in the trash or incinerated, they would flat out refuse due to the legalities.

There is an implied ban on consumption. You obviously can't consume something unless you possess it, and there is no evidence of consumption at the time of trial without possession, which is why consumption itself is not explicitly outlawed. I'm not sure about the legalities of testing the blood for steroids and so on, though I know for sure that you can be refused employment based on blood or urine tests for such substances.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why would it be murder if a mother stopped feading her baby? A baby is not dependent on its mother. Anybody can take care of it.

Any woman could carry the fetus as well.

A fetus transplant isn't biologically feasible.

If the pregnant woman doesn't want a parasitic growth in her womb, then she must be free to have it removed, flush it down the toilet, etc.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What is your position on abortion for a two-day old embryo which doesn't even have a brain yet? Do you believe that such an entity has individual rights?

PsychoWizard does indeed think a 16 cell zygote or a two-day old test tube embryo is a human being. He thinks such an "entity" - a tiny clumping of cells smaller than the human eye can see - has individual rights. Lol.

PsychoWizard won't acknowledge this himself, but he is also very, very christian.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Why do you say that when fully grown animals are far more sentient and developed?

PsychoQizard believes that humans are "special" -- more valuable than any mere animal - and therefore a 16 cell zygote has more value (and rights) than say an adult chimpanzee (which is capable of learning a 200 words and more signing vocabulary).

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
At what stage of development should abortion become illegal in your view? Have you observed any evidence that a newborn infant possesses the immediate ability to engage in abstract, conceptual thought and that it possesses a real personaltiy inside?

My argument in favor of legal abortion is that the abstract concept of individual rights does not apply to growths inside of people and that no person exists inside of a fetus. You cannot murder a person who does not exist in the present; the fetus is tabula rasa and devoid of any human personality. For the purposes of objective, non-ambiguous law, the government should recognize individual rights at the time of birth even though a newborn infant is not actually capable of possessing them.

A month old baby has no personality, no apparent memory for people, things, places, it's "just" a blob of screaming flesh. My cat has more personality. I would hesitate to call a month old baby a "human being". It can communiate discomfort, I guess, by screaming, but so can a mouse, a cow, a pig, a chicken, etc.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What is your non-religious argument? Altruistic duty to protoplasm? Altruistic duty to a fetus that is less sentient than many grown animals? Could you come up with an argument based on rational selfishness as a moral code?

:laugh:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CycloWizard is of course correct. There can be no compromise of abortion. The emotionally imagined and projected rights of an individual in potential, a fetus that is simply a life-form on the level of an amoeba or hydra, or thousand year old duck egg people eat for breakfast in China cannot be allowed to preempt the real and actualized rights of women. We cannot enslave women because some people are not able to rise above their fantasies, imagining themselves to be the victims or some Satanist's abortion vacuum cleaner. These fantasies are created and sustained by the emotionally ignorant, unconscious individuals who have no introspective capacity and do not realize that what they project is happening to the fetus is what, emotionally, happened to them as children. We all feel aborted, don't know it, are terrified to know that we do, and remain unconscious all our lives of the massive trauma we all died from in childhood. Instead we uselessly waste our lives trying to change 'our there' when the cure can only be had 'in here'. In order to heal you have to re-suffer consciously what has already happened to you.

What criteria have to be met in order to consider the termination of a human life murder rather than a right that must be protected?

I think it would be ok to abort a fetus at any time prior to birth. The termination of 1-2 month old babies should be classified as infanticide, not murder. I question whether a significant legal penalty should be attached to the act of infanticide.

Why not push it up to year? Why not up to the legal age of 18? Why draw the distiction at all.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And your point was already defeated as ANY person could care for a child after birth. Happens all the time.

Define viability in a concrete way.

I've done so in previous threads concerning abortion. I believe a fetus becomes a human being w/ all the attached privileges and rights when it is born and able to live without life support devices.

Originally posted by: charrison
Which means anything in the 3rd trimester is a baby and not a fetus. Medical technology is pushing this into the 2nd trimester.

That's not what I meant. I was responding to CW's comment that a baby is reliant on its mother after it is born (presumably just as it is in the womb). Which is patently untrue, as any person can care for a baby once it is born.

Besides, anything in the 3rd trimester is already off-limits. But refer back to my definition of viable above. No, I don't think "robofetus" qualifies.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Any woman could carry the fetus as well.

You know, I'd really like to hear the explanation for this one too. Somehow I think it'll be a doozy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And your point was already defeated as ANY person could care for a child after birth. Happens all the time.

Define viability in a concrete way.

I've done so in previous threads concerning abortion. I believe a fetus becomes a human being w/ all the attached privileges and rights when it is born and able to live without life support devices.

Originally posted by: charrison
Which means anything in the 3rd trimester is a baby and not a fetus. Medical technology is pushing this into the 2nd trimester.

That's not what I meant. I was responding to CW's comment that a baby is reliant on its mother after it is born (presumably just as it is in the womb). Which is patently untrue, as any person can care for a baby once it is born.

Besides, anything in the 3rd trimester is already off-limits. But refer back to my definition of viable above. No, I don't think "robofetus" qualifies.

Well our definations of viable will have to differ as I have a wonderful neice that would not have been considered "viable" in your world view.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Well our definations of viable will have to differ as I have a wonderful neice that would not have been considered "viable" in your world view.

That's completely fine, after all your neice was wanted and therefore her parents were willing to go to great lengths to keep her alive. That said, I don't necessarily think that should be used as a standard for unwanted pregnancies.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Well our definations of viable will have to differ as I have a wonderful neice that would not have been considered "viable" in your world view.

That's completely fine, after all your neice was wanted and therefore her parents were willing to go to great lengths to keep her alive. That said, I don't necessarily think that should be used as a standard for unwanted pregnancies.

I think it is viable definition of what life is however.

 

[Velk]

They are dependents on your tax form because of the added expense which is non-existent until they're born and need diapers, insurance, formula, clothes, etc.

Now that, at least, is purely silly. Maternity clothing ? Parental counselling ? Doctor and clinical checkups ? Ultrasound ? Amniocentesis ? Increased food ? Loss of work time ?

Not to mention that waiting until *after* the baby is born to buy cradles, baby food, clothes, car seats etc is a really silly idea.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: charrison
So where do you draw the line on when a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being a baby?

Somehow I dont think you are going to answer this question.

I'd call it an infant at birth to several months, and at several months old I'd consider extending the baby full rights as a human being.

 

[DealMonkey]

Okay, I guess I need to clarify a point made earlier.

I've done so in previous threads concerning abortion. I believe a fetus becomes a human being w/ all the attached privileges and rights when it is born and able to live without life support devices.

What I meant to point out is my personal opinion of when a fetus should be granted rights/priveleges. I realize now, that I was asked about viability. Which is really something completely different. A fetus could be viable, as Charrison has pointed out, during the third trimester or as medical technology advances, even earlier.

I tend to believe that the word "viable" by strict definition alone would indicate "capbable of living outside the uterus," which I feel implies without life-support equipment, and yet I'm sure there's going to be differing opinions on this topic...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
When they are capable of living outside of the womb.

What is the basis for this position? Why is this a place for granting rights? I've already established why it is not a logically tenable position, since reliance on the mother does not end even after birth, nor can a concrete basis for viability be established.

No, you haven't established that, at all.

Red's argument is that the fetus, human or not, has no right to take up real estate in the mother's womb if the mother doesn't want it there. Human or not, it's too bad for the fetus if the mother wants it out. C'est la vie.

Once she has given birth, she is free to put the baby up for adoption if she doesn't feel she is capable of providing the child with a home.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And your point was already defeated as ANY person could care for a child after birth. Happens all the time.

Define viability in a concrete way.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Society will take care of an unwanted baby but not an unwanted fetus. Your counterpoint is does not have weight.

Does society cut off life support when a 'fetus' is born prematurely? Don't think so, so it looks like society will care for the fetus. You're fabricating a distinction to suit your cause, something you love to call others out on. What is different between a fetus that is inside the mother and outside, other than spatially? Is it the umbilocal cord?

Are you, or the state, willing to pay to have the fetus (which would other wise have been aborted according to the mother's wishes) carefully removed from the pregnant women, and then transferred to a neonatal intensive care unit to be cared for until it is capable of breathing and maintaining a heart beat without life support? If you aren't, then abortion it is. :laugh:

 

[krcat1]

To get back to the original question, as a Red state person I believe that I can answer some of your questions.

The number one desire of the social conservatives is to have social conservatives appointed to the federal bench. Bush will do that. The new judges won't have an effect immediately. Over time, they will and the social conservatives know this.

Bush really doesn't need to directly attack the social agenda. He'll get them by default.
You see, if you remove the judges and the bereaucrats, the remaining local power centers will be far easier for the social conservatives to control.

Bush isn't doing so much as just not being Kerry or Gore.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I've done so in previous threads concerning abortion. I believe a fetus becomes a human being w/ all the attached privileges and rights when it is born and able to live without life support devices.

Define life support devices. Is a parent's hand feeding it a life support device? Hopefully you see where I'm going with this.

Besides, anything in the 3rd trimester is already off-limits. But refer back to my definition of viable above. No, I don't think "robofetus" qualifies.

Untrue. Third trimester abortions are still legal in many places, if not everywhere. Many places have some restrictions, but not out-and-out bans.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You know, I'd really like to hear the explanation for this one too. Somehow I think it'll be a doozy.

Woman X can carry a baby conceived with woman Y's egg. Point is, a fetus is a fetus, not part of the mother, as is readily demonstrated by this example where the mother isn't even part of the gestation equation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I've done so in previous threads concerning abortion. I believe a fetus becomes a human being w/ all the attached privileges and rights when it is born and able to live without life support devices.

Define life support devices. Is a parent's hand feeding it a life support device? Hopefully you see where I'm going with this.

Besides, anything in the 3rd trimester is already off-limits. But refer back to my definition of viable above. No, I don't think "robofetus" qualifies.

Untrue. Third trimester abortions are still legal in many places, if not everywhere. Many places have some restrictions, but not out-and-out bans.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You know, I'd really like to hear the explanation for this one too. Somehow I think it'll be a doozy.

Woman X can carry a baby conceived with woman Y's egg. Point is, a fetus is a fetus, not part of the mother, as is readily demonstrated by this example where the mother isn't even part of the gestation equation.

This can be done after the development of an umbilical chord? And who is that a part of?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This can be done after the development of an umbilical chord? And who is that a part of?

If test tube baby A, formed from mother B's egg and father C's sperm, is implanted in woman D, whose body is the fetus a part of?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Are you, or the state, willing to pay to have the fetus (which would other wise have been aborted according to the mother's wishes) carefully removed from the pregnant women, and then transferred to a neonatal intensive care unit to be cared for until it is capable of breathing and maintaining a heart beat without life support? If you aren't, then abortion it is. :laugh:

So if you're not willing to take over emotional and financial responsibility for my children, you can't tell me not to drown them? :roll: You make no sense.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This can be done after the development of an umbilical chord? And who is that a part of?

If test tube baby A, formed from mother B's egg and father C's sperm, is implanted in woman D, whose body is the fetus a part of?

Anyone? Anyone at all?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This can be done after the development of an umbilical chord? And who is that a part of?

If test tube baby A, formed from mother B's egg and father C's sperm, is implanted in woman D, whose body is the fetus a part of?

Anyone? Anyone at all?

So, you're talking before the umbilicle cord then. Fine, but we're still not able to transplant an unwanted pregnancy into another woman's uterus. So what's the point?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I've done so in previous threads concerning abortion. I believe a fetus becomes a human being w/ all the attached privileges and rights when it is born and able to live without life support devices.

Define life support devices. Is a parent's hand feeding it a life support device? Hopefully you see where I'm going with this.

Yes, I know where you're going and its futile. You know what I mean by life support device. And no it doesn't include a mother's hand...

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Besides, anything in the 3rd trimester is already off-limits. But refer back to my definition of viable above. No, I don't think "robofetus" qualifies.

Untrue. Third trimester abortions are still legal in many places, if not everywhere. Many places have some restrictions, but not out-and-out bans.

Hmmmm, I wasn't aware of that. I thought it had to be under extremely adverse conditions -- i.e. mother's life in jeapordy kinda thing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So, you're talking before the umbilicle cord then. Fine, but we're still not able to transplant an unwanted pregnancy into another woman's uterus. So what's the point?

Point is, it's clear that the fetus is not part of the mother's body.

Yes, I know where you're going and its futile. You know what I mean by life support device. And no it doesn't include a mother's hand...

You can't define life supporting devices in a way that logically agrees with your position, so you call my argument futile? I think you're putting the shoe on the wrong foot.

Hmmmm, I wasn't aware of that. I thought it had to be under extremely adverse conditions -- i.e. mother's life in jeapordy kinda thing.

Typically any possible health risk to the mother (physical, mental, or emotional) is sufficient cause - I'm not aware of any state with more stringent regulations than this. But, this is really no restriction at all, as any pregnancy will undoubtedly have some physical, mental, and emotional effect on a woman when the child is delivered. In other words, it's just a way for legislators to appease those who are unaware of the laws as written.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So, you're talking before the umbilical cord then. Fine, but we're still not able to transplant an unwanted pregnancy into another woman's uterus. So what's the point?

Point is, it's clear that the fetus is not part of the mother's body.

Once there's an umbilical cord it clearly is a part of the mother's body. Seems like you're arguing in circles here.