What Does it Mean to be Pro-Life?

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
Secondly, refering to what you said here about defining a person by independent consciousness as the criteria for terminating the life of those that temporarily have their brain activity stopped, its not based on whether its currently conscious... its based on whether the brain is currently capable of conscious thought. An early fetus is not, a person undergoing a medical procedure is. This also might have implications into the Terry Schiva case (sorry to go there again) since she was not capable of conscous thought anymore due to the severe brain damage she had sustained (as opposed to someone simply in a coma, in which the brain can become completely conscous again). I think as science better understands the functionality of the brain, we'll get a better idea of exactly when conscousness is acheived. Of course, this is only relevant if you believe that a person is more than just a petry dish of unique human DNA.

The problem I was trying to get at with respect to consciousness is that we cannot quantify this. When is a brain capable of sustaining consciousness? If this could be sufficiently demonstrated one way or the other, then this is a suitable way to define personhood and I would be fully agreeable to it. However, since we cannot even ascertain whether or not the brain is the source of consciousness at this time (I know this sounds ridiculous, but I have a brother who is a cognitive scientist and he says the literature suggests that even those who do not demonstrate active thinking patterns, i.e. those in comas, often recover with memories of the time spent in comas), I do not see this as being an acceptable criterion. Many theories have been developed along these lines, but all must rely heavily on hand-waving rather than hard science to make their points. The true beginning, the onset of consciousness, or 'ensoulment' as some have described it, simply cannot be known using existing methodologies. If it can be known, I am all for declaring personhood accordingly. The USSC agreed with this in a portion of Roe v. Wade, then went on to assign a completely arbitrary definition for personhood. This is what I cannot understand.

 

[Zebo]

Always follow the money with Republicans. Their "pro'life" concerns has been shown bunk by the way it stands in stark contrast to callous disregard for the already born.

Abortion?
Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap. Once they've forced that woman to give birth of course they are not concerned about either her or her child wanting to eliminate AFDIC/food stamps and probably immunizations schedules if deseases wer'nt contagious. But we can always count on them for moral condemnation, telling her she what she should and should'nt have done instead of programs that actually help.


health care?
It costs money to keep people heathly and alive. They dont want to pay for it. They even faught "COBRA" ? which extends health care benefits if you lose your job you won't lose your health coverage right away. Granted you have to pay for it, but at least at the company cheap rate instead of individual rates which are outragous. Money wise? It keeps you working for the corporate machine, afraid of loosing your families benefits by "going it alone".

death penalty?
Again it costs money to keep people housed in prison. (around 80K a year) Also there is a revenge angle theat appeals to many repulicans who never saw punitive measures/spending they did'nt like. Just look how excited FOX news gets and the play they recieve showing bombing of iraqi towns on "shock and Awe"

War? See death penalty. Money wise, it's a fat paycheck and out-right fraud for the MIC involved (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7306162/site/newsweek/) who contribute heavy to republicans all over the country.

Basically I think Republicans are very selfish and myopic.. same with abortions.

 

[nutxo]

Sometimes pro life can be very simple.

I believed my teachers that it wasnt a baby, it was tissue. A mere lump of hamburger nothing to be concerned about and an abortion was akin to removing a wart.

Then my wife got pregnant and I went to an ultrasound and it became painfully obvious that it was a baby.

I would never deny a person their "right" to an abortion as defined by the supreme court. Im sure there are many people who think that just because somethign is legal it doesnt seem right.

I am against the death penalty. Not a single innocent person should die if the legal system errs.

The war. I dunno.

I think we all do a make a huge mistake by pigeonholing people. We devide and attempt to define the whole population based on a single belief or political orientation. We are all individuals who hold beliefs based on personal experiences, peer pressure or god knows why.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Your argument is also predicated on potentiality - the idea that a criminal would have a potential to cause increased harm should the citizen not have a gun. I just got out of pchem class, so I'll give you an analogy. For the actions of single particles, we cannot precisely what the action of the particle will be. Similarly, we cannot know exactly what a single person will do at any given time. But, we can stochastically determine the actions of groups of many particles, to give probabilities.

We place trust in our police force to prevent crimes, and to be a deterrent. The reason the police exist is that citizens do not trust other citizens to police themselves or control themselves; in other words, the very reason the police exist is to prevent domination based on brute force.

Again, you attempt to assign predictability to human actions. The uncertainty principles in physical chemistry deal with non-sentient objects - they have no free will, therefore they will always obey the relevant laws. Humans are not so simple. You can attempt to teach them to obey these laws, but there is no guarantee that they will do so. I think you would find that the probability distributions for criminal activity vary depending on many more factors than a simple particle in a box, or even the more complex models, that you see in physical chemistry. I'm pretty sure no such model for predicting human behavior to any extent exists. Thus, you have no basis for claiming that you can even stochastically predict patterns of human behavior. My reasoning, like the laws of thermodynamics, are based on experience and intuition. They cannot be proved, so to speak, but they almost always hold up to examination. One of the things that made me lean towards allowing guns (I was vehemently supporting gun bans probably two or three years ago) was literature suggesting that, in cities with conceal carry permits, violent crime rates dropped dramatically after the permits were offered. The previous city I lived in, Dayton, OH went from #7 on the violent crime list to about #25 in one year after allowing concealed carry. This isn't exactly an exhaustive study, but it is highly suggestive that allowing citizens the ability to carry a defensive firearm will deter criminals, contrary to what you have claimed in the rest of your post (omitted for brevity ).

Because of these difficulties in predicting human behavior, police are not effective at preventing crime. I live in St. Louis, one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country (#2 or #4, depending on what stats you check, right behind Detroit usually). I've never seen so many cops on the streets. However, this is yet another attempt to treat the symptoms rather than the underlying problem. At best, it doesn't work. At worst, it's taking money from where it could be effective - social programs, better education, or what have you - and puts it in the hands of another government employee who is ineffective, to say the least. However, politicians simply can't win elections by promising long-term results. People want more and more cops on the streets, so they vote for whoever promises this the most.

Viability is sufficient cause.

You repeatedly claim this, but you offer no evidence to support it. You simply say that 'that's how it is' and leave it at that.

It is not effort and support that I use as criteria to separate the mother from the unborn fetus. Nor is it spatial uniqueness. It is the physiological connections between the mother and the child.

What physiological connection - the umbilocal cord? If physiological connections make one human part of another, then riddle me this: if you have a pair of Siamese twins and one on the left hates the one on the right, can he kill his twin? The one on the right is clearly much more physiologically connected to the one on the left than the fetus to the gestating mother. If you say no, what if the one on the right had no arms and relied on the left twin to feed him or he would die?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Your argument is also predicated on potentiality - the idea that a criminal would have a potential to cause increased harm should the citizen not have a gun. I just got out of pchem class, so I'll give you an analogy. For the actions of single particles, we cannot precisely what the action of the particle will be. Similarly, we cannot know exactly what a single person will do at any given time. But, we can stochastically determine the actions of groups of many particles, to give probabilities.

We place trust in our police force to prevent crimes, and to be a deterrent. The reason the police exist is that citizens do not trust other citizens to police themselves or control themselves; in other words, the very reason the police exist is to prevent domination based on brute force.

Again, you attempt to assign predictability to human actions. The uncertainty principles in physical chemistry deal with non-sentient objects - they have no free will, therefore they will always obey the relevant laws. Humans are not so simple. You can attempt to teach them to obey these laws, but there is no guarantee that they will do so. I think you would find that the probability distributions for criminal activity vary depending on many more factors than a simple particle in a box, or even the more complex models, that you see in physical chemistry. I'm pretty sure no such model for predicting human behavior to any extent exists. Thus, you have no basis for claiming that you can even stochastically predict patterns of human behavior. My reasoning, like the laws of thermodynamics, are based on experience and intuition. They cannot be proved, so to speak, but they almost always hold up to examination.

The analogy was not meant to compare humans to particles. It was meant to show that while you cannot predict the action of one person, as a group of individual people you can predict a general tendency. This is a basic assumption that people use everyday. We do not know whether any individual person will obey the law because he sees the benefits of a lawful society, but as a group of people, we can predict a general tendency that most people will do so.

One of the things that made me lean towards allowing guns (I was vehemently supporting gun bans probably two or three years ago) was literature suggesting that, in cities with conceal carry permits, violent crime rates dropped dramatically after the permits were offered. The previous city I lived in, Dayton, OH went from #7 on the violent crime list to about #25 in one year after allowing concealed carry. This isn't exactly an exhaustive study, but it is highly suggestive that allowing citizens the ability to carry a defensive firearm will deter criminals, contrary to what you have claimed in the rest of your post (omitted for brevity ).

There is just as much, if not more evidence that gun control lowers crime. Here's a link correlating gun ownership to crime rate: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html.

Because of these difficulties in predicting human behavior, police are not effective at preventing crime. I live in St. Louis, one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country (#2 or #4, depending on what stats you check, right behind Detroit usually). I've never seen so many cops on the streets. However, this is yet another attempt to treat the symptoms rather than the underlying problem. At best, it doesn't work. At worst, it's taking money from where it could be effective - social programs, better education, or what have you - and puts it in the hands of another government employee who is ineffective, to say the least. However, politicians simply can't win elections by promising long-term results. People want more and more cops on the streets, so they vote for whoever promises this the most.

I'd rather have more guns and more police out on the street, than having the fear that any random person out there might go beserk with his AK-47 and kill me.

Viability is sufficient cause.

You repeatedly claim this, but you offer no evidence to support it. You simply say that 'that's how it is' and leave it at that.

Read the rest of my post. Viability is a sufficient distinction because the fetus is a nonentity until it is viable. Until the fetus is separate from the mother, the mother should be in charge, because she has the rights to her own body.

It is not effort and support that I use as criteria to separate the mother from the unborn fetus. Nor is it spatial uniqueness. It is the physiological connections between the mother and the child.

What physiological connection - the umbilocal cord? If physiological connections make one human part of another, then riddle me this: if you have a pair of Siamese twins and one on the left hates the one on the right, can he kill his twin? The one on the right is clearly much more physiologically connected to the one on the left than the fetus to the gestating mother. If you say no, what if the one on the right had no arms and relied on the left twin to feed him or he would die?

I'm trying to make sense out of that - it's kind of late.

Your argument here is severly flawed, since you are dealing with a completely different situation. The twin on the right hasn't developed out of the twin on the left, they developed out of a mother. Since the twin hasn't developed out of the other twin, the right twin has no more authority over the left twin than the left twin has over the right twin. Their connection is not mother-child, developer and the developed.

In the case of a mother, however, the fetus has developed out of the mother, as part of her body, and as such, she has authority over it until it can become independently viable and exist separate from her.

In addition to your critique of my argument, please explain to me why genetic distinction is the only one that can be made. Also, why does this genetic distinction mean that the fertilized egg is instantly human life.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The analogy was not meant to compare humans to particles. It was meant to show that while you cannot predict the action of one person, as a group of individual people you can predict a general tendency. This is a basic assumption that people use everyday. We do not know whether any individual person will obey the law because he sees the benefits of a lawful society, but as a group of people, we can predict a general tendency that most people will do so.

I realize full well that that was what you were trying to do. I merely stated why it is not an effective method.

There is just as much, if not more evidence that gun control lowers crime. Here's a link correlating gun ownership to crime rate: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html.

Concealed carry laws, if they become more widespread, might have a significant effect on the trends demonstrated on that page. The fact is that now, I wake up and see many, many shootings on the local news every day. St. Louis does not allow concealed carry. I used to see the same in Dayton until they did allow it. That site simply paints the picture in one dimension, as would be expected from a site that obviates its agenda in its url. Unfortunately, the problem isn't that simple. I don't think a fair comparison can be made between a country where firearms have never been legal and the US when guns are made illegal, either.

I'd rather have more guns and more police out on the street, than having the fear that any random person out there might go beserk with his AK-47 and kill me.

You are living in a dream world if you honestly believe the police can protect you from the random madman with a gun. I say the same thing to people that think the government could actually protect them from terrorism. It's just not a realistic expectation when the reality of the situation is considered.

Read the rest of my post. Viability is a sufficient distinction because the fetus is a nonentity until it is viable. Until the fetus is separate from the mother, the mother should be in charge, because she has the rights to her own body.

OK, then you need to demonstrate WHY it is a non-entity until it is viable. You have yet to do so, or even attempt to do so.

I'm trying to make sense out of that - it's kind of late.

Your argument here is severly flawed, since you are dealing with a completely different situation. The twin on the right hasn't developed out of the twin on the left, they developed out of a mother. Since the twin hasn't developed out of the other twin, the right twin has no more authority over the left twin than the left twin has over the right twin. Their connection is not mother-child, developer and the developed.

In the case of a mother, however, the fetus has developed out of the mother, as part of her body, and as such, she has authority over it until it can become independently viable and exist separate from her.

In addition to your critique of my argument, please explain to me why genetic distinction is the only one that can be made. Also, why does this genetic distinction mean that the fertilized egg is instantly human life.

Ah, now you're changing your story, claiming that the path of development is intrinsic to the declaration of personhood. Previously, you have stated that the physiological connections are what bind the fetus to the mother, not that the mother is the source of the fetus. You specifically call out the mother-child relationship without any reason for setting it apart from that of the Siamese twins, other than saying that it's different. If the fetus' development from the mother makes it part of her body, then is it not also a part of the father's body, since part of him was also required in the process?

Genetic distinction is the only feasible mechanism for determination of personhood for the reasons I already mentioned. The other possible criteria rapidly break down under examination. I don't believe you addressed the non-trivial points I made regarding why viability is not an appropriate condition, though it's late like you said, so maybe I missed them. Here it is again:

Viability does not mitigate the necessity of substantial effort and support of another to continue the life of the entity. Thus, the only logical distinctions between an entity that is considered 'viable' is that it is spatially unique from its host, and that the host need not be the one who continues to lend support to the entity. Hopefully we can agree that spatial uniqueness is much less conclusive in determining distinction of an entity than is genetic uniqueness, as this would imply that any cell that falls from your body is a distinct entity. I'm not sure how the second criterion (that the caregiver need not be the original host) can be construed as determinant in whether or not an entity is distinct.

Genetics dictate that a fertilized egg is human life. If it is not at the moment of conception, it would never become human life. It grows at a rapid rate after conception, as living things are wont to do. Things that are not alive do not grow. It is human by genetics - 'human' defines a species.

As I previously mentioned, consciousness would probably be the ideal criterion, but it is not possible to measure, even qualitatively, as we have not ascertained the source for it in the human being. Intuitively, one would think that it's tied to the brain and its operation, but as I said, the literature suggests that this is not necessarily the case.

 

[0roo0roo]

whatever. a tumor is also genetically human. i could culture some harvested cells and have them grow too. nothing has a right to live off your body. you can offer your care, but it has no right to demand it given. else i could call you a murderer for not offering me your organs or bone marrow if i needed it to live.

 

[Todd33]

Pro-life is a political term, it gets people elected an d means nothing. Saving fetuses and letting children starve or get bombed will never be consistent. I'm pro-death myself. This whole race is pathetic, we need to move over and let a new species evolve and give them a chance. Imagine a species that had all the resources the humans had but didn't war non-stop? Imagine the $400+ billion dollar defense budget going to food, medicine, space exploration, etc.

Maybe Koala people would do better, they seem like nice animals.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out. Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry. It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

It is also hypocricy to want to err on the side of life when it comes to capital punishment and war, but not want to err on the side of life when it comes to abortion. There is a flip side to every coin, and rampant hypocracy coming from both the left and the right...the right just happens to be a more prominant, vocal and visible voice at the moment, but as our government is a pendulum swing, this trend won't last for long.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Pro-life is a political term, it gets people elected an d means nothing. Saving fetuses and letting children starve or get bombed will never be consistent. I'm pro-death myself. This whole race is pathetic, we need to move over and let a new species evolve and give them a chance. Imagine a species that had all the resources the humans had but didn't war non-stop? Imagine the $400+ billion dollar defense budget going to food, medicine, space exploration, etc.

Maybe Koala people would do better, they seem like nice animals.

A world without republicans... Sounds pretty damn good to me...

Cyclo you view life starts instantly at conception? What would your opininons be on safe-sex tought in the the class room? As a "voting" issuse, how important is it to you over other issuses...

 

[Starbuck1975]

A world without republicans... Sounds pretty damn good to me...

Well that would still leave on political party to screw things up...I think a world without any political parties would be far better.

 

[Tab]

Doesn"t Germany have all right wing parties banned? Anyway we do need at least a two party sytem. They need to be able balance out each other on issuses.
Of course this is kind of hard to do... to not have political parties...

 

[Starbuck1975]

Doesn"t Germany have all right wing parties banned? Anyway we do need at least a two party sytem. They need to be able balance out each other on issuses.
Of course this is kind of hard to do... to not have political parties...

I suppose our political system almost necessitates the need for political parties, although I doubt the Founding Fathers envisioned a society ruled by two parties and there somewhat limited ideological worldview.