When does life begin? (Split from "rap(ist) victims" thread)

[fskimospy]

Slut shaming is alive and well in the US. I find it holds true across a wide range of topics. For instance, abortion. The idea of exemptions for rape and incest simply baffles me. If you think abortion is murder, why would the conditions of conception matter? People usually respond that it 'wasn't their fault', which implies that women who had consensual sex are in fact to be punished for their sluttiness.

I find this holds over for rape as well. If a girl gets too drunk or acts too slutty somehow, she deserves in some way the punishment of rape.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If you think abortion is murder, why would the conditions of conception matter? People usually respond that it 'wasn't their fault', which implies that women who had consensual sex are in fact to be punished for their sluttiness.

I don't think that's necessarily the implication.

I see abortion as a conflict between a woman's right to decide what to do with her body, and the fetus's right to develop and live. It is easier to place greater emphasis on the woman's right when the woman became pregnant by force as opposed to just not taking proper precautions. (That doesn't mean that all pregnancies fall into those two categories.)

Even if I thought the right to life was absolute, I might well support exemptions for rape and incest, for the simple practical reason that those exemptions make it easier to get public support for abortion bans in other circumstances -- stopping most abortions is better than stopping few of them.

 

[fskimospy]

I can see the practical argument, that makes sense to me. If you truly believe a fetus to be a living human, that body rights vs life argument doesn't sway me much. I mean when it cones to someone's right to life, that wins out just about all the time, regardless of circumstances.

This is a tangent, but I think another reason for this is that basically no one in America actually thinks that life starts at conception. They may claim that they do, but I find that EXTREMELY unlikely.

 

[Mursilis]

This is a tangent, but I think another reason for this is that basically no one in America actually thinks that life starts at conception. They may claim that they do, but I find that EXTREMELY unlikely.

I know many, many people who believe exactly that.

 

[fskimospy]

I know many, many people who believe exactly that.

I know people SAY they do, but I still find it unlikely.

Here is a hypothetical: say a fertility clinic catches fire. You see a screaming baby trapped in a room and a tray of 100 fertilized eggs sitting next to it. For whatever reason you can only grab one. If you truly believe those embryos to be lives every bit as deserving of protection as any other person, logic and morality dictate you grab the embryo tray and leave the baby to burn.

In my opinion anyone who does that is fucking nuts, and I find it very likely that nearly all the "life begins at conception" people would save the baby as well. People say it because it is easy to say, but I doubt they would have the courage of their convictions.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is a tangent, but I think another reason for this is that basically no one in America actually thinks that life starts at conception. They may claim that they do, but I find that EXTREMELY unlikely.

Why do you find that so hard to believe? I do, and I'm not even pro-life.

The fact that life begins at conception for a fetus doesn't mean it has the same legal or even ethical status as a baby.

 

[Mursilis]

I know people SAY they do, but I still find it unlikely.

Here is a hypothetical: say a fertility clinic catches fire. You see a screaming baby trapped in a room and a tray of 100 fertilized eggs sitting next to it. For whatever reason you can only grab one. If you truly believe those embryos to be lives every bit as deserving of protection as any other person, logic and morality dictate you grab the embryo tray and leave the baby to burn.

No it doesn't. In dire circumstances, necessity may force prioritization. A baby has a 100% chance of being born (because it is in fact already born). An embryo doesn't. Miscarriages happen all the time.

 

[fskimospy]

Why do you find that so hard to believe? I do, and I'm not even pro-life.

The fact that life begins at conception for a fetus doesn't mean it has the same legal or even ethical status as a baby.

I meant life beginning at conception in the way that it is most commonly discussed in American politics, that a fetus has the same rights as any other human.

 

[fskimospy]

No it doesn't. In dire circumstances, necessity may force prioritization. A baby has a 100% chance of being born (because it is in fact already born). An embryo doesn't. Miscarriages happen all the time.

The same thing would hold true for any woman seeking an abortion, miscarriages happen all the time.

Large numbers of people who argue that life begins at conception argue that a fertilized embryo is a person, deserving of all the rights of any other person. By making that choice they are leaving a hundred people to die to save one.

Regardless, feel free to jack up the numbers. A thousand, ten thousand, whatever. I don't care the number of embryos that you choose, any number is monstrous.

 

[randomrogue]

No it doesn't. In dire circumstances, necessity may force prioritization. A baby has a 100% chance of being born (because it is in fact already born). An embryo doesn't. Miscarriages happen all the time.

lol of course it does! You can't possibly say that if you believe life begins at conception you would leave ONE HUNDRED embryos to burn to save ONE baby.

It's a great thing to think about and to truly test your convictions. People just tow the religious line without thinking about this logically. Clearly life does not begin until birth or, being super generous, when the baby can survive on its own outside the mother.

 

[Mursilis]

It's a great thing to think about and to truly test your convictions. People just tow the religious line without thinking about this logically. Clearly life does not begin until birth or, being super generous, when the baby can survive on its own outside the mother.

The fact that you call it a "religious line" merely demonstrates that you've been lazy pursuing other viewpoints. Here are some other perspectives for you:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1909/atheist_secular_and_prolife.aspx#.UUxgBTeRf98

There are other links, if you care to find them.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Clearly life does not begin until birth or, being super generous, when the baby can survive on its own outside the mother.

"Clearly"? I don't think so.

Your definitions make little sense to me. What does being able to survive on its own have to do with whether it is alive or not?

Are you saying that the day it can survive outside the womb the fetus suddenly is "alive" but the day before it was not?

The ability to survive outside the womb is also a function of medical technology. A hundred years ago, a fetus born at 26 weeks was most likely doomed; now, the fetus has a 90%+ chance of survival. Your definitions would imply that a 26-week-old fetus is "alive" in 2013 but "not alive" in 1913.

 

[Mursilis]

The same thing would hold true for any woman seeking an abortion, miscarriages happen all the time.

Natural death isn't the same as non-natural death. An old person dying of heart failure in a nursing home usually just results in a funeral. An old person dying of suffocation from a pillow held over their face usually (hopefully) results in an indictment.

Large numbers of people who argue that life begins at conception argue that a fertilized embryo is a person, deserving of all the rights of any other person. By making that choice they are leaving a hundred people to die to save one.

Regardless, feel free to jack up the numbers. A thousand, ten thousand, whatever. I don't care the number of embryos that you choose, any number is monstrous.

Which is why the creation of embryos for uses other than implantation and growth into infants is monstrous, IMHO. To me, it's analogous to why we don't tolerate the growth of embryos for organ harvesting.

 

[Mursilis]

"Clearly"? I don't think so.

Your definitions make little sense to me. What does being able to survive on its own have to do with whether it is alive or not?

Are you saying that the day it can survive outside the womb the fetus suddenly is "alive" but the day before it was not?

The ability to survive outside the womb is also a function of medical technology. A hundred years ago, a fetus born at 26 weeks was most likely doomed; now, the fetus has a 90%+ chance of survival. Your definitions would imply that a 26-week-old fetus is "alive" in 2013 but "not alive" in 1913.

Thanks for saving me some typing.

 

[stormkroe]

lol of course it does! You can't possibly say that if you believe life begins at conception you would leave ONE HUNDRED embryos to burn to save ONE baby.

It's a great thing to think about and to truly test your convictions. People just tow the religious line without thinking about this logically. Clearly life does not begin until birth or, being super generous, when the baby can survive on its own outside the mother.

So is it the physical location or the necessity for aid that makes them alive or not to you? The location arguement is laughably absurd. Let's look at aid. Say you get syphilis because you're a free thinking, open minded guy. I guess we could kill you, right? You'll probably die without medical aid, hell according to some people's logic you're not even alive anyway.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a tangent, but I think another reason for this is that basically no one in America actually thinks that life starts at conception.

Of course it does. Tell a biologist that a zygote isn't alive and you'll get blank stares. The relevant points involve philosophical decisions. At what point does a human under development have a greater right to life than a woman's decision to terminate it? That's what it's about. Does the potential person enjoy any rights at all? If so, when? Does the woman have absolute rights under all circumstances at all times? If so what makes the organism in question less human at one end of the vagina than the other? That brings up other ethical questions as well that I'll not go into.

This is a complicated issue and the resulting decisions are entirely arbitrary. There is no "this is the right cut off time for an abortion" written in space-time.

Few can discuss this issue dispassionately.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I meant life beginning at conception in the way that it is most commonly discussed in American politics, that a fetus has the same rights as any other human.

That however is sloppy thinking and it's commonality is a poor excuse, and a significant reason why civil discourse is difficult. Making a complex ethical decision is not helped by incorporating terms designed to invoke emotional responses. It's not your fault that the discussion in America is what it is so I'm not blaming you. Life and continued existence do not evoke the same visceral response in most people, and this topic is more about feelings than intellectual discovery by its nature.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you think abortion is murder, why would the conditions of conception matter? People usually respond that it 'wasn't their fault', which implies that women who had consensual sex are in fact to be punished for their sluttiness.

Punished? To carry and protect a child that you WILLINGLY conceived is not punishment. In the case of rape it was not your choice. See, I'm pro-choice when it comes to conception. After that it's a different story.

 

[fskimospy]

That however is sloppy thinking and it's commonality is a poor excuse, and a significant reason why civil discourse is difficult. Making a complex ethical decision is not helped by incorporating terms designed to invoke emotional responses. It's not your fault that the discussion in America is what it is so I'm not blaming you. Life and continued existence do not evoke the same visceral response in most people, and this topic is more about feelings than intellectual discovery by its nature.

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote on both posts. Personhood would be a better term to use than life though, I guess.

When I originally wrote that I was more going for how peoples opinions about abortion seem malleable based on if they think it is the woman's fault. While the opinion that personhood begins at conception is lazy, I think few people would deny that significant numbers of people at least claim to hold exactly that opinion. I also believe all of them to be either full of shit or psychotic, based on my example above.

 

[fskimospy]

Punished? To carry and protect a child that you WILLINGLY conceived is not punishment. In the case of rape it was not your choice. See, I'm pro-choice when it comes to conception. After that it's a different story.

So you are saying that it is okay to kill a child inside of you so long as it was unwillingly conceived? Why would killing that child be okay?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote on both posts. Personhood would be a better term to use than life though, I guess.

When I originally wrote that I was more going for how peoples opinions about abortion seem malleable based on if they think it is the woman's fault. While the opinion that personhood begins at conception is lazy, I think few people would deny that significant numbers of people at least claim to hold exactly that opinion. I also believe all of them to be either full of shit or psychotic, based on my example above.

People are almost magically inconsistent. What comes to mind are those who say life is sacred and therefore must be protected (meaning they want abortions prohibited) then gave full support to killing Iraqis who never intended to harm us, that being "necessary" or inconsequential.

Go figure.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Cancer cells are alive and grow inside the human body, are they sacred?

"Being a living organism" and "being a person" are two different definitions. It's the second one that many people grapple with, since we give more rights to people than cells or animals.

If there is no functioning brain, is there a person? At the moment of conception, there's the possibility of a person, but I don't see that clump of cells as being one yet.

Once a person actually exists, then we get to the point of a conflict of rights, where we have to decide if one person's right to life is strong enough to sentence another person to carry them around inside their body for months while they grow.

That's from the viewpoint that there is no "soul" implanted at conception. If you believe a "soul" gets added instantly instead of (say) with the first breath, then I can see that to you that clump of cells is a person even without a heart or brain.

 

[fskimospy]

People are almost magically inconsistent. What comes to mind are those who say life is sacred and therefore must be protected (meaning they want abortions prohibited) then gave full support to killing Iraqis who never intended to harm us, that being "necessary" or inconsequential.

Go figure.

I think it mostly comes from the tribal nature of politics. (I always find it funny when I hear news people refer to the politics of third world nations as tribal as if ours aren't too)

There is a very sad/enlightening work on this from the 50s called the nature of belief systems in mass publics. It is a dated now, but I still found it an interesting and depressing read.

 

[Doppel]

Slut shaming is alive and well in the US. I find it holds true across a wide range of topics. For instance, abortion. The idea of exemptions for rape and incest simply baffles me. If you think abortion is murder, why would the conditions of conception matter? People usually respond that it 'wasn't their fault', which implies that women who had consensual sex are in fact to be punished for their sluttiness.

I find this holds over for rape as well. If a girl gets too drunk or acts too slutty somehow, she deserves in some way the punishment of rape.

I am also absolutely baffled by the rape exemption. If a person is pro-life (I am) it is due to a belief that an unborn fetus is worthy of legal protection. The fact that it is the product of rape matters to me not one iota; they are separate issues. Either the fetus is a human or it isn't. Just because it was forcibly created doesn't mean its life holds less value. Similarly, a newly born baby who is murdered has every legal protection of a newly horned baby who was the product of rape. Post-birth they are 100% equal in legal protection so why are they not pre-birth?

To me either a fetus is not a human in which case do what you want or it is in which case you don't do what you want. Rape as the genesis is irrelevant to me.

I only support abortion at any point in the life cycle if the health of mother is in serious question.

Of course we all know that only a very, very tiny percentage of abortions are due to rape-pregnancies and a very small number are for the physical health if the mother. Note I said physical because it is more objective than mental health.

 

[Doppel]

Btw I think life begins at conception. Biologically this is infallible and yet I can hardly be bothered to explain why I agree I would save a born person before 100 tiny blobs on a cell tray in case of fire.

This is probably why many people have various ideas of when a fetus deserves protection; how many weeks along.

I am convicted in this though: aborting a fetus that is ~26 weeks along is pure and simply premeditated murder. When the fetus is absolutely viable with modern medicine (and it very much is at this point along) the literal only difference between it and a born baby is a few inches of flesh. The fact it would die without intervention holds no sway with me, as the same can be said for a newborn as well.